This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

or

(,ii) Union having a minimum of 5 per cent membership of workmen in all maiketing locations—establish- ments taken together on All India basis.

containing 158 names was submitted to the management. But, on verification it was found that about 42 names were common to this union as well as another union and when the present union was called upon to clarify and explain it, they did not participate, whei eas the i lval union appeared and parti- cipated and they cerUied that these 42 persons were the members of their union. In this connection, it has been submitted on behalf of the union that even if it is so that a particular worker happens to be member of two unions, it cannot be termed as illegal because in the Trade Unions Act there is no provision to prohibit a worker from becoming member of two unions. There is no doubt about it that such restriction has not been put in the Trade Unions Act, but, when one¹ union is claiming that those persons whose names found place in the list submitted by the B.O.P.W.U. belonged to their union and they verified it before the management, it was necessary for this union to participate and claim that tiicy happeaed to be members of this union. Had this kind of assertion been made on behalf of the union, it would become a duty on the pait of the management to make a thorough verification by checking register of membership and the register maintained regarding subscription collected from members and ihen the matter could have been settled. But the B.O.P.W.U. did not participate in such meeting for verification for identifying the 42 members and therefore the management accepted the claim of the rival union and treated that those 42 persons were not the members of the union. B.O.P.W.U. and after deduction of these 42 names the strength of the present came down to 11 per cent only in 'he region. Therefore, on the basis of the criteria they were not qualified to participate in (he discussion and accordingly the.y have been excluded. The union, B.O.P.W.U. also did not produce the membership register or the register of collection of subscription from members to make good their point that these 42 disputed persons were members of their union. So, the conclusion was tha! this union had included the names of those 42 persons who happened to be members of another union in their list only in order to increase the number of members to m.ike their strength 15 per cent of the workers in the reg-on. In such a situation, the action of the management cannot be said to be .arbitrary, malafide or illegal. In the circumstance, the union B.O.P.W.U. has no case to make out (hat they have been discriminated against bv the management in prbitiary and improper manner and they do not appear to be entitled to anv rMe-f rln.'mprl h.- them.

11. Accordingly. T hold that ihe union, Bengal Oil & Petrol Workers Union which has raised the dispute has no case and is not entitled to any kind of relief what-so-ever. Accordingly, the reference is answered and disposed of.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officir

D A W, Kolkata, The 5th September, 2001

New Delhi, the 21st September, 20016021 Ltd. and their workmen which was rcc-hed by the Central Government on the 18-9-200).

fNo. L-43012|14|97-IR(M)l B. M, DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 'IRIBTJNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated 4th September, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'blc Shri V. N. kulkarni, B Cum., I.I.B, Presiding Officer.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE C.R. No. 65J9S

I PARTY

Smt. Jayabai, W[o Late Shri Lalya Naik, T. No. 235, Ingaldhal Post, Lambani Hatti, Village Chitradurga-577501 (Advocate Shri N. Madhusudha:i)

II PARTY

The Executive Director, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Chitraduiga Gold Unit, Chitradurga-577501 (Advocate-Shri N,S. Rnjaram)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exKicising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of Suh-scclion 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Ir.'.s rcfeired Ihis dispute vide order No. L-43012|14|97|IR(.M) dated 17th August ]998 for ndjudicntion on the foll-twine schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. in refusing tu s.'ttlc- voluntary retirement bcnclils in favour of th^ wile of Shri L. Naik wha had opted for voluntary retirement scheme offered before committing suiciJ.¹ on 29-12-96 is justified? If not. to whal relief Smt. Javabai is entitled?"

2. The husband of first party, Smt. Jayahni v.;is working with the management. The manag'-menf refused Voluntaiy Retirement to her husband, Lntc Sri S. Lalya Naik and there- fore this dispute is raised.

3. Tt is seen from the rccoids tnat this dispute is tiled by LRs of the late workman.

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

5. It is the case of first party that her husba-ml was woik- ing as Gescral Mining Workman wlh token number 235 at the Huili Gold Mines Co. Ltd; Chit.aduig.i Gold unit since 23 years. The management introduced voluntary rctirenuiit during April 199ft and the late workman sought voluntary retirement. He applied Voluntary Retirement during June 1996 with the impression thai he will get the benefit nf Voluntary Retirement duiini; July 1996 which will enable him to get ovei- his son's ailment with medical caie and attention as the boy is mentally TOt-irdod

benefit but the management refused to consider the lequesi since the employee in question died before the acceptance of voluntary lemcmenl. The first parly approached ihc Asstt. Laboui Commissioner, Hubli and durum conciliation Ctie Assistant Labour commissioner sought information from the management but rlic employee died before his application could be considered. Late woikman submitted the application promptly but the benefits were not given. The first party tor these reasons has prayed to pass award in her favour direct- ing the management l-o pay voluiiaiy letircmcnt benefits.

7. The management filed detailed counter.

S. Ihc case of the management is that the CliitraduiEa Copper Unit was making heavy losses and was a sick unit ever since its inception and amalgamated as M|s. Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited in order to rehabilitate and lejuvl- nate and also explore the possibilities of prospects of mining gold, since there was small quantiLy of gold available as pe> the geologists reports, and accoidingly gold mining project was taken up. 1 he second party decided to reduce the woik force of 840 employees "by. announcing Voluntary Retire- ment Scheme on 30-5-1996. The second party had interim settlement with the workman on 25-7-19% on the issue ot reducing the suiplus personnel and pruning the strength of surplus personnel as stated in para 3 of the counter. Many employees came forward for opting voluntary retirement scheme. The second pal ty due to financial stringencies it could not implement immediately and hence, it could not accept the applications, and also could not inform the acceptance of the applications since it was not in a position to make payments under the VRS, in case it accept the applications of the employees who have opted for the scheme. Mr. Lalya Naik was one of the employees who had submitted his appli- cation opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 22-6-1996. But the second party had not selectcd|accepted his application, by the competent authority namely General Manager|Execu- tive Director and all the applications opting VRS were kept pending.

9. It is repeatedly stated that due to acnl'j financial strin- gencies the management could not ••UTfiiige for funds and hud e\'ended the .scheme which had expired on" 21-11-1906, upto 31-3-1997 and (his was infoimcd to representatives of the unions. On 1-3-1997, the second paily was not in a position to settle the benefit amounts arising out of VRS in respect of the workmen.

10. It is agoin stated that the application dated 22-6-96 of Mr. Lalya Naik was not accepted and the cjiicstioji of settling the amount did not arise upfo 31-3-1997. II is only after 1-3-1997 in lespect of several other employees their applica- tion had been accepted by the management and the second party paid the besefits of VRS to them.

11. It is further stated that Mr. Lalya Nail committed suicide in December 1996. The wife of dec'ise.l Mr. Lalya Naik had requested the management for payment of benefits arising out of the VRS. But the nnnaeement had intimated her that since his application had not Been accepted during stipulated perioid ;.nd that since all the applications were kept pending, the question of making any payment does not arise. This was also informed during conciliation proceedings.

12. It is further stated that the scheme of VRS announced by the management which has been accepted by the Cent- ral Government vide its order No, Cl 67 CM1 95 dated 14-5-199(i piovides under the_ Clause S that the Competent Authority is the Managing birecto;- of the Comp-iny, Clause No. 9.1 specifically mentions that it is the discretion of the Competent Authority to accept or reject th" application of any employee for voluntary relii Jn.i'iit.

13. There is no merit in this reference and the manage- ment has prayed to reject the reference. Parawis replies are als-j given. The management is n->t aware of the fact that Mr. i.fllya Naik was suffering from mt-ntal imony. The management for these reasons and for m.iny other reasons stated with regard to each par.i Ir..s prayed to reject the reference, The management htis given e'etails of payment of VRS to employees in pain 25 of Hie counter. The mnangemrnt has prayed to reiect the refctence6022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OGTOftEiR!- 20, 200T/ASV1NA 28, 1923 [V\n IL -Stc. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 21st-September, 2001

S.O. 2850.—I* pwr-suunce of Section 17 of the

ludiibtrialDi^pMtas Am, 1947 (14 of 1°47),the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the

Industrial Tribunal, Goa as shown in the annexure

in the Indwhtrial. Dispute between thu employers

in relation to the managamuut'Of. Central Bank of 15. lb is-seen-from-the records that- the lirs. party after-¹ giving evidence remained ansciist and no one repre- sented ' her. 1 • hftvc carcfullV considered the entire material. First' p"Wy; WW1 has stated in- her evidence that after the death-of'her husbfwid the company gave gratuity, I'F and other • statutory amount admissible to her. She states in her cross, examination-thnt she" has no written documents to • show• thftt" her husbmid-'deinanot'd the mnnastment to give benefit undeV VRS. She also says that her husband was-- hale- ami 'healthy till he cumniitfud suicide. Wilh this cross examination it is clear that a tier the death of the workman aJl the benefits were given to his wife. WW1.

India and their'workman, which was received by the Central Government, ou •20<-G9'-<2GOJ.

[No. L-12012/267/92-IR (B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, LInd"c Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 16. We .have the evidence of MW1 who hits Ki.ven detail- ed' evidence, and has said that deceased Lnlya Naik filed application on 1-7-96 ns per Ex. M4 and the schemo was extended for a period of 6 month* uptn 27-11-1996. Ht: had, also stated, that due to financial const-roima the. com- pany was unable lo settle the application. Hei catajwriciilly states in the. evidence that the application of Laljia .Naik was not. one of the applications aracn.ij the 109 applicfltions. The dcocased Lalya Naik has not' given, for Voluntary Retirement exxcept to take the benefit under the scheme.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PAN M l.

(BEFORE SHRI AJIT J. AGNT. HON-BL-E

PRESIDING OFFICER)

Ref. No. IT/5/93

Mr. Wilson Coutinho,

4. On the pleadings of the parties following

issues were framed at Exb. 7

1. Whether the Party I/Union proves lhat the domestic enquiry held by the Party TI was not fair and proper, the Inquiry Officer being bias in favour of the Party II?

2. Whether the'Party-I Union proves that the imposing of punishment of stoppage of two incre- munis of the workman Shri Wilson Coutinho is in violation of the terms of the •Bipartite Settlement signed in the year 1966?

3. Whether the charge of misconduct levelled against the workman-Shri Wilson Countinho as proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal?

4 Whether the Party I/U.nion proves that the action of the management of Party 11 in imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments on the workman Shri Wilson Countinho is not justified?

5. Whether the workman Shri Wilson Countinho

is entitled to any relief?

6. What Award or Order?

19!h October 1966. Tha' a charge shea for'mis- conduct dated 12th November, 1987 was served on the workman and subsequently idomeslic enquiry was held against him. That the enquiry was- con- ducted by a person with bias mind and the findings submitted by him arc perverse. That imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments is in violation of the ' Bipartite Settlement and therefore the workman raised the dispute through th e Central Bank ' Employees Union. That since before the conciliation officer the employer took the stand that the workman had not exhausted the available re- medies, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected without proper appli- cation of mind. That -the workman thereafter raised fresh dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the same ended in failure on 6th July 1992. The workman contended that no charges of misconduct arc proved against him nor he committed any mis- conduct under clause no. 19.5{e) and 19.50) of the Bipaitite Settlement dated 19-10-66. The woik- man therefore, contended that the punishment of stoppage of two increments awarded to him by the employer is illegal andoinjustifidd?

5. The ;ssue no, 1 was tried as, prdi ninary issue since the workman had challenged the.conducting of domestic enquiry against¹ him. Both the parties led evidence on the said issue and by findings dated 30-1-97 this Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is not fair and proper and that therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 'Accordingly the enquiry was set aside and The parties were asked to lead evidence on the meiiis of the case. Accordingly, the workman as well as die employer led evidence on the merits of the case and thereafter .the. uuiewus .fixed for passing award. However, before the award was passed the workman filed an application dated 5^9-2001 at F.xb. 20 stating t h a t h e h as asked for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the employer and as-such he is not interested to persue with the matter and lhat there is no dispute existing between the parlies. The workman prayed 'that in view of the above, no .dispute award be passed. Adv. Shri Samant, representing the employer gave his no objection for passing the no dispute award.

3. The employer filed the written statement which is at Exb. 6. The employer stated that at the time when punishment was awarded to the workman, he was,governed by Bipartite Settlement but now since he has been promoted as an officer, his service condi- tions are governed by Officer's Service Regulations. Tha employer denied that charges levelled agaimt the workman were without basis arid stated that the charges of •imisconduct which were levelled against the workman were that he had remained absent 'imauthoriscdiy, he had wilfully dis- obyed the .lawful and reasonable order of the mana- gement, and his. continued unauthorised absence had seriously alfceted the functioning of the branch, particularly, relating to the customer service. The employer denied that the Inquiiy Officer was bias against the workman or that his findings are per- verse. The emnloyer lurther denied that the punish- ment of stoppage of two increments awarded to the workman is in vio- lation of Bipartite Settlement. The • employer stated that the appeal filed-by the workman before the Appellate Authority was dismissed because it was barred by law of limitation. The employer stated that there was a delay of 3^ years in filing the.appaal and as per the bipartite settlement the appeal-had to be filed within 45 days fronvthe date of the order. The Appellant stated that the workman was.given full opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and the Inquiry Officer had even reopened the enquiry at the request of the workman. The employer contended that the charges levelled against the work- man were proved in the enquiry-, held , against him and punishment was awarded to him in terms of the provisions of the (Bipartite ^Strttiement,

6. The reference of the Idispute. was made by the Central Government at the instance of the workman. The workman himself has stated in the application filed at Exb. 20 that he has already asked for volun- tary retirement under the .Voluntary -Retirement Scheme introduced by !the employer and that he is not interested in pursuing further with the dispute. He himself have stated that he has no'dispute with the employer and that there is no existing dispute. .Since according to the workman himself the dispute docs not exist, the reference does not survive. Tn the. circumstances, T pass the following order,6024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 \P,v.u I I — S E C. 3(MV| ORDER

It is hereby held that the reference does not survive since the dispute doer, not exist.

No order as to co^t. Inform I he Central Government accordingly.

AJIT J. AGNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 S.O. 2851-—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, Hyderabad as shown in the annexi^e in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of National Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-09-2001.

[No. L-J7011/I0/2000-IR (B-Il)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Dated : 31st August, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 6/2001 BETWF.FN :

The Branch Secretary, General Insurance Employees Union, Hyderabad Branch, 3-4-308'12, Lingampally,

Hyderabad- -500 027.

- Petitioner AND

The Regional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Hyderabad. Regional Office, PB. No. 39. 11 lid Floor, Mogul's Court, Bashcerabugh, Hyderabad- 500 001, - Respond' nt Appearances :

For the Petitioner ; The Branch Secretary.

Central Insurance Emp-

loyees Union.

For the Respondent : Shri Stm'ri-ri KiVhcie,

Advocate.

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10(1 )(d) of Ihc T.D, Act, 1947. The reference is ;

"Is the management of National Insurance Co, Ltd ( Hyderabad justified in removing cashier functions from Smt. Sesha Sai, Asstt. (C), L.B.' Nugar Branch, Hyderabad and entrusts the said duties to Shri G. Siddappa ? Tf not, what relief is the disputant entitled for '?"

The Petitioner/Union filed a claim statement stating that the management arbitrally wants to remove cashier function from Smt. Scsha Sai, Asstt. (C), L.B. Nagar Branch itmo"ing the laid, down guidelines of their He;d Office. They are bound to follow the said guidelines di.ted 25-5-2000. The management cannoi arbitrally take-away the cashier work from the workwoman. Hence, orders may b: passed directing the respondents for retention of Smt. Sesha S<"i on cash duties.

2. The respondents filed a counter stating that Smt. Sesha Sai is serving as Asstt, (C), L.B. Nagar B'anch and she is holding the function of a Cashier ha. on the said date Cashier functions were not taken away. In fact, one Shri G. Sidd'vppa, who is senior most in the grade of Asstt. (C) came forward to hold the cash functions and his request was under consi- deration. Smt. Sesha Sai app/onched the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). In fact, the Cashier work was not handed over to Shri G. Siddoppa and. the Cashier work is not taken away from Smt. S?c;ha Sai.

3, Tnspite of several adjournments given from 17-7-2001 the petitioner was continuously ab ent for 6 adjournments including 13th August, 2001. Hence, heard the arguments of the respondents com:el. As tie petitioner has not turned out inspite cf l/um- ber of adjournments and the petitioner/Union has failed to produce any evidence in support of her claim. Therrfore. the reference ih ordered, against the petitioner and. it is held thai the pclitioi.ei is r:ot entitled for any relief.

Acco'dingly a Nil Award is pasi-cd.

60'5

I Prrty

II P"iiy

The General SecrclFry. The Senior Divisional C/o. Sbri S. B. Timoli, Manager, Dictated to Shri P. Kanaka Roju, L.D.C., trans- cribed by him coi reeled and pior.ounCtd in (.he Open Court by mo on this I he 3Kt day of AUIHJSI, 2001.

¹ "Shiva Prasad", Life liisuiance Corpo- E. 1SMA.IL, Presiding O(lio:>-

Near Savanur Naw^b ration of India,

Bungalow, P.B. No. 16, APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

1 Cross, Narayanapur, Dharw^d—580 001. Dhar\vad--580 008,

Wilness examined for Witness examined for

the Petition^ the Respondent

Appearances ;

NIL NIL

I Pariy General Secretary6026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ?OCTOBER 20, -2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PART H ^ S E C. 3(h)] Full Time ^Sweeper. A widow of another deceased employee was appointed as a Full Time sw~eper and she got the job on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the action is not correct in so far as 1 party is corxerrcd. The I party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. The. case of the II paity in brief is as follows,

7. The case of Ire TI pTty is that, it is true that the I party was appointed as Part-time Sweeper from November 1972 to 10-10-1976. His services were not.made permanent and not regular, in view of his unauthorised absence and alleged negli- gence of his duties. It is line that he approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and during the hearing an award- was passed on 17-8-87 to instated • his- services without ^ Mckwagcs. It is.the further, case of the mprragemert' that since i the I party,was not a regular• Sweeper irler iilia with the/ understanding that appointment will' be part- time with duty of 4 hours and his services will be considered from the date cf joining and the period from 11-10-1976 till he joined duty, and will not entitle him for any wagi-s though the said period will be. taken .into account only for purpose for. computing his service, period and the I paity accepted the cordit-ions. He was rein- stated withcut b^ckwages. The rules provided only for recruitment of Permanent Siaff but not for Part-time as per Life India Coiporation of Tndia Rccmtiment instructions 1979 as stated in •Para 8 of the Counter. The management is un- able tc absorb the Petitioner urdcr existing Statutory Rules of the Coiporalion. Manage- ment lor these reasons- and for, some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that the I party got examined himself as WW 1. He has stated in detail, how, he .joined and how the vacancy arouse. He admits in his cross-examination, that nduring 1976, there, was break in service and he was rc- appointed in the year 1987. I have, .carefully, gone thraugh all the recruitment rules, and : material relied' by both sides. I have con:,id.exed Written Arguments filed by the I party. Jn view of i.the available records before me, 1 am of the topinion that this is a fil case to consider abjprption, of I party by the management. According, to the case of the. management, it is found that the 1 •party has worked for a long rpcriod .and the management has to absorb , him and .therefore • the 'Management cannot now • go back to the . terms what has been accepted. The .Management on -previous occasion has taken service...from.-,Mm. In view of the terms and documents hjfore."-me, I am of the opinion (hai ..the ..management, has to consider the :absorption> of I- party and.accordingly , I proceed > to -pt'ss the following ciders.

ORDER

Reference is partly allowed and Management is directed to • absorb T party to. the Permanent post without any other benefits including Backwages. Accordingly, the case is disposed off.

(Dictated to the LDC in Camp Court, transcribed by , him, corrected and signed by me • on 6th September, 2001)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer ..New -Delhi,.,the 25th September, 2001 S.-.O. 2853—In pursuance of Sect'on 17 of the Industrial , Ditpulc-Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), , the Central .Government hereby publishes, the .award of. the Central Government Industrial .Tribunal, Bangalore as shown in the Aunexure in.the.t.Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in. relation to the management of Corporation Bank and -their workman, which, .was received by the Central Government on 24-09-2001,

^JMo. L-12011/112/99-TR (B-TI)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL " TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT

"Shram Sadan"

G. G. Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560 022.

Dated | 6th September, 2001

PRESENT :

• Hcw'ble V. R Kulkarni, Presiding-Officer

C. R. No. 4/00 I Party < TT PaWy -

The Assistant Secretary, The..TLegioftalvtManager, Corporation Bank. Corporation • Bauk, Employees. Union-, i • Regional- Office, C/o Corporation Baftk;. MoAnttavirmath Press Sujatha Complex, P.'B. • Building,

Road, P. B. No. 22r P. B. Mo. 619,

DHARWAD-580 001. HURU-580.029,

Appearances.

I Party None

II Party : Pradeep.S. Sawkar

AdvocateT.

A WART* :

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d).of Sub-section (I) and Sub-Section 2A ' of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 "has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12011/112/99/IR (BJI). dated 31-12-1998 for adjudication on the follow- ing schedule.

SCHEDULE'

"Whtther • the -action o f ' t he Management of Corporation'Bank, -MaHgalore is justified - in dedutttingi' the >. amount? -of • Rs> • 1508/- for" the • months .of-^ Dex;cmb"f'- 19W*to February 199"l towards ['the' ,cost>> of replacing" old> • key sys- tem '(7 If* not •• what * relief > the workman is entitfedoto'.iT

2. The 1 parly workman is working with the 11 party. A sum of Rs. 1500.00 was deducted for the months of December 1997 to February 1998 towards the cost of replacing Old Key System and an Industrial Dispute wa.s raided and < a reference was received by this Tribunal. Notices were bent lo the parties, I party since Jhe-begia- ing of this dispute has not appeared before the Tribunal. TI party appeared. It appears 1 party i is not interested in this dispute and therefore he remained absent. No puipose will be served if the matter is kept pending, therefore I proceed to pass following order.

ORD£R

Reference is Dismissed.

(Dictated to the LDC" in camp court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me > on 6th September, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

Wll New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 • S.O.Z854.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the.

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the -Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to tho inanage-i, meat of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-09-2001.

[No. L-12012/76/94-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE-

BEFORETHE CENTRAL.GOVT INDUSTRIALS TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNA1 Thursday, the 23rd August, 2001

Present: K.-KARTHtKEYAN, •

Piesiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL-DISPUTE-NO. 379/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrie! Tribunal I D. No 154/94?

(In tho matttu ot the dispute foi adjadieation und"ft. clause (d) of Sub-seoiiort (1) and Subjection 2(A) -of Section 10 of tho Induitiial Disputes^Actt- 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sii J. Durai and then Management of Indian Bank, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

Sri J. Durai : PjrLy/Workman S/o S.R. Jiiyarairun

AND

The General Manage.-, : II Party/Mdnagement Indian Baftk, H O. Chennai.

Appearance :

For the Workman: M/s. K.. Elanga &

G. Chamki Raj,. Advocates.

For the Management - M/s. Aiyar & DoHa,

Advocates60;'8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PAF.' TI—SEC. 3(ii)l The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferreJ by clause (d) of Sub-section (I) and Sub-section 2(A) of Suction 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012/76/94-IR(B'-I!) dated 17th Juno, 1994.

This reference has been made earlier,to I he Tamil

Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 154/94. 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 Tri- bunal, the case has been taken on hie as J.D. No. 379/2001 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 19-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tiibuna), counsel on cither side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

Upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on recordj the oral and 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 consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of¹ reference by the Central Gent, for adjudica- tion by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank, Madras in terminating the services of Shri J. Duriii, casual clerk/typist of the erst- while Bank of Thanjavur (since merged with Indian Bank) with ef^oct from 20-02-1990 is justi- fied? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?"

continuously in all departments of the bank. When the Indian Bank took over the Bank of Thanjavur on February, 1990 he was refused employment with- out assigning any reasons. When he worked in the Central Office as well as other branches of the Bank of Thanjavur for mare than seven years he was neither given permanent employment nor an order of termi- nation/retrenchment by the Bank. He made several representations through petition and in person to the Indian bank authorities, but he was not taken back into employment. The Bank of Thanjavur was amalgamated with Indian Bank from February1 1990. All the assets & liabilities or the Bank of Thanjavur was taken over by the Indian Hank, which includes the permanent and temporary employees of the Bank of Thanjavur. After amalgamation, the Indian Bank has absorbed several tamporary employees as their employees, persons with lesser service and qualifications have been absorbed by the bank. The Petitioner is fully qualified to be absorbed as a typist in the bank. At least he should have been absorbed as a messenger considering his past services. In the Bank of Thanjavur itself, his services should have been regularized since he worked as a typist continuously for more than 240 days. When Indian bank has absorbed several persons who have worked in the Bank of Thanjavur with less service and qualifications non-absorbing the Petitioner is a discrimination violating the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The Respondent/Indian Bank have deliberately refused to absorb the Claimant in service on the pretext that no documents are available in Bank of Thanjavur to show that the Petitioner had worked in thai bank. The act of the Respondent is in violation of legaily confirmed obligation of the Respondent/Management to absorb the temporary employees and it is a violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, it is prayed that an award may be passed directing the Respondent/ Management to absorb the Petitioner as an employee in the bank of the Respondent/Management and regularize his services from the date of amalgamation of Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. with Indian Bank and to pay all the consequential monetary and attendant benefits.

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

3. The averments in the CouiKcr Statement of the Respondent are brifly as follows:--

At .the outset, the Respondent/Bank submits that the Petitioner is not a person who was covered by the Scheme of Amalgamation and not one of the employees of the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Lid, and therefore, the question of his becoming an employee of the Respondent/Bank did not and does not arise. Hence, the relief claimed is misconceived and deserves to be The T Party/Workman Sri J. Durai (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) worked as typist at Centra! Office, Thanjavur and as messenger in branches of Bank of Thanjavur on daily wages for over 1700 days from July, 1982 to January, 1990, He worked as a messenger at Central Office from 10-7-82 to 30-9-82, at Thimkkatupalli branch from 8-12-82 to 8-3-83,, at Udayarpalyam branch from 20-5-83 to 31-5-83, at Lakshmangudi branch from 29-8-83 til] 27-9-83, at Nagercoi! branch from 9-5-84 to 30-6-84 Besides he-worked in the Central Office during the intervening days as typist. He worked as typist at Central Office, Thanjavur from 1-1-85 to 31-3-1990 602V

up for enquiry here, WW 1 was recalled and further enquired and one more witness for the I Party/Workman was examined as WW 2. The learned counsel on either side have advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point for my consideration is :- -

"Whether the Respondent/Management of Indian Bank Madras, has terminated the services of Sri J. Durai, casual clerk/typist of the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur with effect from 20-02-90 ? If nol, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

Point :

The Petitioner Sri J. Durai was engaged by the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. to do the work of typist and messenger on daily wages basis as casual worker. As WW 1 the Petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he used to be paid wages once in a week on every Saturday through vouchers. Ex.. W 1 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 5-11-89 sent by the father of the Petitioner one Mr. S. R. Jayaraman, retired Clerk of Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. io (he Bank of Thanjavur Lid. In that, it is stated that the Petitioner his son, was working as temporary typist on daily wages in the bank. Ex. W 4 and W 5 are the xemx copy of the letters dated 18-12-89 and 01-03-90 sent by the Petitioner to the Chairman, Indian Bank, Madras, requesting him to give him a posting in the bank. In those letters also he has stated that he worked as a typist in the Bank of Thanjavur on daily wiges. In the cross examination, the Petitioner as WW 1 has admitted that he worked i n the Bank of dismissed in liminc. The Petitioner did not choose t6 take any steps to claim absorption into the service of the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. The claim of Petitioner is vitiated by laches and dc'ny. He has no right in law to slake such a claim. It is not the case of the Petitioner th;rt Indian Bank terminated his service. When the Petitioner had never deemed an employee of ihe bank, the question of Indian Bank terminating has service does not arise. The terms of reference docs not constitute the ease and demand of the Petitioner. There is no legal right inhered in the Petitioner to stake claim firstly for absorption and secondly for regularization in as much as, the case of the Petitioner is for absorption and regularization unless his cause had been espoused by a Union having in it substantial number of workmen of the Indian Bank, it is not an industrial dispute which could be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Tt is not an industrial dispute coming within the provisions of Section 2A or 2K. of the Industrial Disputes Act. The erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur got amalgamated by the Respondent/Bank on 20-2-90 in terms of the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Govt. of India under Section 45 (7) of the Banking Regulation Act, J949. According to the Petitioner he was working only on causal basis in the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. and the Petitioner did not come within the employees covered by the Scheme of Amalgamation, The question of this Respondent/ Bank terminating his service did not and docs not arise. Tha questioi of taking him back into the services of the Respondent/Bank does not arise because he was never an employee of the Responded Bank nor there was any occasion of the Respon- dent/Bank to terminate his services. It is only the permanent employees of the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. who were on its rolls on 19-2-90 have been taken into the services of the Respon- dent/Bank. The temporary employees of the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. were not taken into service by the Respondent/Bank. There is no discrimination as alleged by the Petitioner having deliberately kept quite for several years without staking any claim against the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Ltd, us an afterthought on amalgamation of the erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. with the Respondent/Bank the Petitioner has come out with this frivolous case. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner may be dismissed.

Thanjavur as typist on daily wages and he was treated as a. temporary employee. So all these things disclose that the Pctitoner was engaged as a casual employee on daily rated wages by the erstwhile B.mk of Thanjavur Ltd. Though the concerned employee, the Petitioner was employ- ed as a casual workman in tho Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. from 10-7-82 to 19-2-90, he has not raised any dispute churning regularization of his service as a permanent employee for seeking absorption as an employee in the Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. As WW 1, he has admitted in Hie cross examination that pri'or to 31-1-90 he has not taken any steps to move the Court. He has denied the suggestion in the cross examination that he has not asked the Chairman, Bank of Thanjavur Ltd. to make him permanent in the employment and he has only requested him to give a chance in any one of the posts in that bank. Further there is nothing in evidence on the side of the Petitioner that ho ever raised any

4. When the matter was pending before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal and came up for enquiry, the I Party/Workman was examined as WW 1. One witness for the Management was examined as MW 1. Ex. W 1 to W 22 and M 1 scries were marked When the mattci was taken6030'' THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :,OOrOBEfl I 2 0, 2001/ASV1-N& 28. 1923 [ P \ R I. IIJ -Set. 3 ^' •6031

the date of merger of Bi'nk of Thanjavur Lid. with

Indian Bank is justified. Hence, the concerned work-

man is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this day the 23rd August, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYA.N,.Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For I Party/Workman :

WW1 ->-Shri J.Durai.

WW2 — Shri H. Venkatesa Bhat.

For TI Party/Management :

MW1 -^Shri P..M. Selvakumar.

•DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I Party/Workman :

Date

Description

Ex. No.

2

3

1

<, 05-11-88 Xerox copy of the letter from Sri

WI

S. R.. Jayaraman to the Manage-

ment?

"04-11-88

W2

Xerox copy of the letter from the

Petitioner to the Management.

• W3

Xerox- copy of the'fetter front the

Petitioner to the Management.

18-12-89

W4

Xerox copy of the letter from the

Petitioner to the Management.

01-03-90

W5

Xerox copy of the letter from the

Petitioner to thetiManagement.

W6 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement of

yearwise worked Details from

-i.985to-l.ft90.

W7 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement of6032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PART T I _ S E C. 3(ii)| 2 W22 06-04-9 f Xerox copy of the letter from the 1 3 Management to the Petitioner. Xerox copy of the statement of Nil

W9

ycarwise worked Details from

198?. lo 1990.

Xerox copy of the letter From the 20-04-90

W10

Petitioner to the Management.

Xerox copy of the letter from 04-05-R4

W1I

A.G.M., Bank of Thanjavur Ltd.

to Branch Manager, "Nagercoil,

Xerox copy of the letter from 18-05-83

W12

A.G.M., Bank of Thanjavur Ltd.

to Branch Manager, Udayar-

palayam.

Xerox ix p>' of the letter from 20-08-83

W13

A.G.M., Bank of Thanjavur Ltd.

to Branch Manager, Lakshman-

gudi.

Typed copy of statement showing 1985

W14

the days worked Monthwise

details.

Typed copy of statement showing 1986

W15

the days worked Monthwi'e

details,

Typed copy of statement showing 1987

W16

the days worked MonthwNo

details.

Typ;d copy of statement showing 1988

W17

the days worked Monthwise

details.

Typed copy of statement showing 1989

WI8

the days worked Monthwise

details.

Xerox copy of the letter from 18-06-91

W19

Petitioner to Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central).

Xerox copy of the letter from 17-01-94

W20

Petitioner to the Chairman &

Managing Director, Indian Bank,

Madnis.

Xerox copy of the letter from 17-01-94

W2I

Petitioner to the Chairman &

Managing Director, Indian Brnk,

Madras,

For the II Party/Management :

Date Descrip' ion

Ex. No.

Ml series

Original Aitendance Registers of various sections/Department of Bank of Thanjavur for the years : Jani'.Ary, 1987 to April, 1990 Planning Deptt, Jr nuary, 1988 to December, 1989 —Suit Section. January, 1988 to May, 1990 - - Accounts Deptt. November, 1988 to April, 1990 — Reconciliation Deptt. January, 1989 to March, 1990 — Inspection Sec. - February. 1990 to April, 1990 -• Advance Deplt.

New Delhi, the 21st September. 2001 S.O. 2855-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Dhule as shown in the annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers \a relation to the management of UCO Bank, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-09-2001.

[ No. L-12012/164/97-TR (B-TT) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI K.W. THAKARE, JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, DHULE

REFERENCE I.D.A. No. 1 OF 1998.

BETWEEN

The Divisional Officer, UCO Bank, Divisional Office, Opp. Sangam Press, Kothrud,

Pune.

1st Party/Employer.

Vs.

Shri V.B. Hiikire, Dhulc. . .. Ilnd Party/Workman.

Corum : Shri K.W. Thakare, Judge.

Advocates : 1. Shri D.D. Patil for 1st Party.

2. Shri S.B. Patil for Ilnd Party.

AWARD

(DELIVERED ON 23-7-2001).

The Reference is received by this Court from the Asstt Labour Commissioner (C), Pune, under Order No. L-12012/164/97/IR(B-U) dated 27-2.-98, under clause, (d), of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2-A) of Section-10 of the Industrial Disputes Act- 1947 (14 of 1947), for adjudication of Schedule as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank in relation to its Divisional Office, Pune in non-absorption of Shri V.B. Hultire, Part-time Sweeper, Dhulia Branch as full-time Sweeper is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said work- man is entitled?

2. The Second Party Workman has fikcl bis Statement of Claim at Exh. U-3. Tn short, it i< th? ease of the Second Party Workman that, the Party No. 2 workman is working as a Part-time Employee with the Dhulc Branch of UCO Bank since 2nd May, 1983 on l/3rd Basic Scale. Since 2nd May, 1983 till the date, the workman is "in continuous service of the Party No. 1. As a Sweeper he works with the Party No. 1 Bank from 9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in the morning. Thereafter, from 11.00 a.m. onwards till 6.00 p.m. the TInd Party workman continuously works a3 a Peon in. Dhulc Branch of the 1st Party. For the said work, the Party No. 1 Hank pays Rs. 10/- tb the workman as remuneration. The Ilnd Party workman opens the bank early in the mornini:. daily and thereafter he completes the work of his job ns a sweeper. The Ilnd Party workman also works as a regular peon and performs duties of peon; such us; to provide necessary files ledgers, and registers to the concerned employees of the bank, to file docunu.iis as directed, to punch vouchers, to bind the vouchers, to serve drinking water to the staff, to stamp with- drawal & pay slips, cheque books etc. To cope up

with the work of the said Branch of Party No. 1 at lcatl 4 peons are necessary, but there are only two regularly appointed peens, one of them is 'daptaris' and other is bill-colkctor-cum-peon. The Bank has avoided to make regular appointments and has continued the present workman as a daily wager and thereby has intentionally deprived from the ttatus and prtvileges of the permanent regular employee. There is a settlement jn between the association of the Bank employees and Party No. 1 Bank in respect- of employment and absorption of persons engaged on daily basis. The said settlement was entered into between Management and Work- man's Union on 12th October, 1989. In the said settlement it is agreed in between Bank & Union that, persons, who have bc;n engaged as casual workers for full day's work and who have been discharging any of the normal duties in the Bank in subordinate cadre as casual worker for a period of 240 days or more with or wjihout break during the period of three years immediately preceding the iftflcmcit will be absorbed in the regular services of the Bank. The Ilnd Party Workman is a fit person to te absorbed permanently in the services of Bank according to criterion fixed for such absorption in settlement. He is in the continuous employment of the Bank in the period between 11th October, 1986 tilJ 12 Oct., 1989, and for more than 240 days in each year, on daily wages without any break. Since lost 6-7 years he is continuously requesting Bank for his absorption as a regular employee. He has submitted number of applications and paid personal visits to the higher onlcsrs as well as made all efforts through the UCO Bank Employees' Union. But despite all these efforts, Bank failed to consider his cUiim, and hence the second party workman has constrained to approach the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Pune. The Asstt. Labour Commis- sioner tried to conciliate the matter, but as the Mana- gement of Party No. 1 Bank stick up to its stand that the workman cannot be absorbed, the Hon'ble Authority sent his Failure Report to the Central Government, and thereafter the matter has been referred to this Court. Ii is further submitted by the second party workman that, by keeping him on daily wages for years together and by depriving him from status of permanent Cinployc;, the Bank has indulged into Unfair Labour Practice as defined in Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act-1971. The Bank has absorbed Shri Samkhaji Thakare, who is junior to him. Thus the Bank has shown favouritism and indulged into vice of partiality and committed an unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act-1971. The Bank has failed to implement settlement dt. 12 October, 1989, and thereby indulged in unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971.

3182 GI12001—15.

3. The Claim of the Second Party Workman is opposed and contested by the First Party Em- ployer by filling Written Statement of Exh. C-5.

It is contended that, the claims of the Party No. 2 is not tenable and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the sums and try this reference. As the Party No. 1 UCO Bank is a Central Government Undertaking and exclusively under the Central Government as its apporpriatc Govt. being a Central Governmcnl this Court has no jurisdiction and hence this -f Terence is liable to be dismissed on this Preliminary Issue alone. The Reference also suffers on the po'nt uf limi¹at

He is already absorbed part-time employee (Sweeper* i n l/3rd b?sic ?.c2 ITiay be dis- missed.

4. Upon hearing bdtn the sides, the following Issues are framed by my learned predecesscr vide Exh., 0-9.

ISSUES

1. Does the Party No. 1 prove that he is working as a Part Lime employer with the Dhule Branch cf the Ilnd Party on 1/3 basic pay scale since 2/5/1983 and is in continuous service as apart time sweeper 7 2. Does the second party workman proves that, there is a settlement in between the Association of the Bank Employees and Party No. 1 Bank in respect of empanelmcnt and absorption of persons engaged on daily wage basis ?

3. Does the Party No. 2 workman prove that, he is kept on daily wages for years ti gether and thereby deprived him from the status of permanent emplcyce and wages and other facilities available to the perma- nent employee and the 1st Party has indulged into u'ifair labour practices?

4. Does the Ilnd Party workman prove that, the junior worker Shri Sambhaji Thakare has been absorbed in the service and thereby shown favour- lism and has indulged into vise of partiality and thereby committed an unfair labour practice ?

5. Does the Party No. 1 employer Bank proves that, the Party No. 2 workman was serving as a part time sweeper and not as badli or casual work- man and hence not covered under the definition nf workman?

6. Does the Party No. 2 workman is entitled the relief of direction to absorb as on permanent workman in establishment of Party No. 1 as prayed for 7

7. Whether the Reference is maintainable as per provisions of Section 10(A) of I.D. Act? 7 Whether the present dispute is dispute under Section 2 (K) or 2(a) of the I.D. Act and whether the reference is maintainable before this Court?

8. What order?

5. My findings to the above Isnues are as under as per the reasons below ;—

6. FINDINGS

1. Does not servive.

2. Does not survive .

3. Does not survive.

4. Does not survice.

5. Does not survive.

6. Does not survive.

7. No.

V (A) No.

8. As per Order below.

7. REASONS

ISSUES NO. 7 & 7 (A) ;—

As per Order passed below Exh. C-15, Hie Issues No. 7 and 7(A) arc decided as 'preliminary Issues'.

8. As per Order passed on 13-10-99 by my learned predecessor, the Reference was sent back to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C), Pune.

But the Authority again sent the Reference to this Court for adjudication vide its letter No. 12012/ 164/94-IR (B-II) dt. 10-1-2000.

9. Heard arguments of learned counsels Shri D. D. Patil for 1st Party and Shri Shivdas Patil for llnd Party. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the llnd Party, Written Statement of the 1st Party, and other material produced on record by both the parties.

10. Learned counsel Shri D. D. Patil appearing on behalf of Party No. I has filed the following citations :

(1) A.I.R. 1982 (Bombay) Page No. 253, Kranti Mohan Guruprasad Mehra Vs. Fateh chand Vasuram Behal.

"Objection to jurisdiction of Court

Issue to be tried as Preliminary Issue Determination of such issue and question relating to interim relief-Distinction in procedure."

"Civil Procedure Code-0-14, R-2, Preliminary Issue-Territorial Jurisdiction Issue regarding should be tried as preliminary issue." (3) A.I.R. 1973 (Rajasthan) Page 7 Dhanraj Jain Vs. Smt. Suraj Bai.

"Issue of Law, the decision of which is likely to dispose of the whole suit, may be tried first as a preliminary Issue."

(4) Gangas Manufacturing Co. B Vs. State of West Bengal 1996 (2) L.L.J. 904, (Cal) (5) 1996 (I) L.LJ. Page 369 (on) Utkal Galvarnigens ( P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Orrisa.

11. I would like to mention here the provi- sions and definition of Sec. 2(A) and Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947, which runs as under :

Section 2 (A) : Dismissal etc. of an indivi- dual workman to be deemed to be an indus- trial dispute :

"Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or diffrence between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not with standing that no other workman nor any union of w o r k mi 13 a pirty to the dispute."

12. To come to a propsr conclusion it is necessary to have observations and ratios laid down by our Lordships of various High Courts in the following decisions :

(1) Industrial dispute : A. S. Adhikari Vs. Bank of Baroda 2000 (85) F.L.R. 35 (Dslhi) 2000 LL.R, 192.

"Section-2 (k) & 10 Constitution of India, 195 Art. 226 Dispute Adjudication of—

Jurisdiction—The question as to whether the workman had actually worked for 7 months and whether he was eligible for permanent appointment—Can be looked into only by Industrial Tribunal—Not High Court under A. 226 of the Constitution."

Held : "Needless to say, these are the aspects which were to be looked into by the Industrial Tribunal with reference to the pleadings & not by this Court under A. 226 of the Constitu- tion when C.G.I T had not referred to these aspects or dealt with the same. In fact it shows that even the Management is aggrieved by the Award."

(2) In Indian Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workman, 1962, (4) F.L.R. 44, 1962 (1) L.L.J. 409, (1962- 63), 22, F.J.R. 262 (S.C) :

"The dispute of a single would become an Industrial Dispute when it is sponsored by a Union or by a considerable number of a workman, for it can then be taken that it does not affect them as a class. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the number of workman whose association will convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. That must depend upon the facts of each case & the nature of dispute. The group might even be minority as held by this Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd . Vs. Their Workman 1960 (1) L.L.J. 491 (1960-61) 18 F.L.R. 262 A.I.R. 1960 (S.C.) 777 : But it must be as such as to lead to an inference that the dispute is one which affects workman as a class."

13. "Individual dispute" and'Industrial Dispute" It is now well-sattled that a dispute between an individual workman and an employer cannot become an 'Industrial Dispute' as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act unless it is taken up by a Union of Workman. Though the dispute of a single workman would become an Industrial Dispute when it is sponsored by a Union or considerable number of a workman, no hard & fast rule can be laid down as to the number of workman whose association will convert an Industrial Dispute into an Industrial Dispute. An Industrial Dispute can be raised by a group of workman or by a Union even though neither of them represent the majority of workman concerned.

14. In Suryaprakash Rao Vs. Labour Court (A.P.) 1959 .(1) L.L.J. 241, It has been observed that :

"The fact that the State Government makes a Reference does not by itself give jurisdiction to the Tribunal. The question whether there is an Industrial or Individual dispute can only be decided by the Tribunal on the evidence which the parties might wish to produce." 15. It is also held in Mohan Rice Mills Vs. Hazaria 1952 (1) L.L.J. 565, (1956-60) 13 F.L.R. 7 that :

"In case an individual dispute was referred for adjudication to a Labour Court and the employer raised the contention that what was referred was not an 'Industrial Dispute' OUJ/ and the Labour Court, without deciding the question of its jurisdiction entered upon the adjudication and passed an Award, a writ of certiorari was issued by the High Court to quash such award followed by a consequential direction to decide the question of juris- diction."

16. As per the letter dt. 10-1-2000, under Secretary Govt. of India returned the pappers of Reference to this Court for continuing the adjudication proceeding. It is stated in that letter that, as regards the jurisdiction of Labour Court constituted by the State Government, it may be mentioned that under the 3rd proviso to Section 10 (1) of the I. D. Act, the Central Government being the appropriate Government, is competent to refer a dispute to a Labour Court constituted by the State Government. The Central Government has power to refer the matter for adjudication but the matter should a Industrial Dispute or individual dispute i. c. Industrial Dispute under Sec. 2 (k) or individual dispute under Section 2 (A) of the I. D. Act, 1947. It is a settled position of Law that, an dispute between an individual workman and an employer cannot become an 'Trdustrial dispute' as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act unless it is taken up by a Union of Workman. Though the dispute of a single workman would become an Industrial Dispute when it is sponsored by a Union or considerable number of a workman no hard & fast rule can be laid down as to number of workman whose association will convert an individual dispute into an Industrial Dispute. It is held in 1959 (1) L.L.J. (Supra) that, the fact that the State Government makes a Reference does not by itself give jurisdiction to the Tribunal. The question whether there is an Industrial or Individual dispute can only be decided by the Tribunal on the evidence which the parties migul *vish to produce 17. I have already held Sbo've in the present matter that, the dispute between the workman and the first party is not ah 'Industrial Dispute' as defined under Section 2 (k) nor 'Individual Dispute' as denned under Section 2(A) of the I. D. Act 1947. Hence this Court, constituted by the State Government, has no power and jurisdiction to decide the present Reference. In the light of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that, the present Refeience is not main- tainable before this Court and hence I answer above Issues No. 7 & 7(A) in negative.

AS TO ISSUES NO. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 :

As I answer Issues No. 7 and 7(A) in negative, ultimately the Reference is answered in negative. Hence there is no necessity to proceed further in th& Reference. Hence the remaining Issues No. 1 to 6 do not survive. In the result, I answer Issues No. 1 to 6 accordingly and proceed to pass the following Order.

ORDER

i. The reference is answered in negative.

ii. Sent the Reference Proceeding to the Central Government for appropriate action.

iii. There is no order as to costs.

iv. The second party Workman is at liberty to approach through the Union of which he is a member.

K. W. THAKARE, Judge, Presiding Officer,6038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVTNA 28, 1923 [PART II—SBC 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 26th September, 2001 SO. 2856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in the annexuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-09-2001.

[No. L-12012/198/96-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No. CGIT/LC/R/169/97

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai Shri Ashok Malviya, Village Shyampur, Teh. & distt. Sehore (MP). Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal. Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of September. 20O1 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-12012/198-/96-IR(,B-IIj dated 26-6-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank In terminating the services of Shri Ashok Malviya vide oider dated 30-3-95 is lejtal and justified? If not what relief the said workman is entitled?"

2. The case for the workman is that he was working as cashier incharge at the larkheda Branch of the Bank. He was served with a chargeshect dated 30-12-93, regardlnig the mis-utilisation of customers fund. He submitted reply to the chargeslieet which was not accepted by the management. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold the DE against him regarding the alleged misconduct. During the course of en- quiry, notice was issued to him by the Enquiry Officer to participate in the enquiry. Duo to his illness he sought adjournment which wan given by the officer. The medical certificate was demanded by the Officer incharge and therefore that was submitted to him for needful consideration. The Enquiriy Officer proceeded cxparte against him and hdd the charges proved without affording him the proper opportunity to defend his case. The coj.y of the documents relied on by the prosecution was not supplied to him for submitting h's propsr reuly. Adequate oppoiiunity was not given to him by the Enquiry Officer to defend his case properly before him. Tho Disciplinary Authority wroncly accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dismissal from •service n gainst him. He preferred an appeal before the Appel- Inte authority who dismissed the same without considering the facts on record. The management had Imposed lesser punishment on other employees who were held guilty for committing fraud in respect of the Bank money and they are still in service of the Bank. In this way the Bank has acted discriminate^ in respect to the workman regarding the award of punishment of dismissal from service on the same charges. In view of these facts, the order of dismissal deserves to be quashed. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with all back wages.

3, The case for the management is that the workman was posted as clerk/cashier incharge at Jarkheda branch of the Bunk on his transfer lrctn Itarsi, He was placed under sus- , pension on 13-10-83 pending service of chaigesheet for mis- appropriation of customers funds for his personal use. He was served with a chargesheet in this connection on 30-12-93, Inapiie of several reminders, the workman did not submit his reply to the charges served on him. The DE was conducted against him and tho enquiry Officer gave him several notices to participate in the enquiry. Even after the receipt of the notice the workman did not care to appear before the Enquiry Officer to defend his case properly. The several opportunities were given to the woikman by the Enquiry Officer to parti- cipate in the enquiry but he deliberately avoided to appear before him. The Enquiry Officer was therefore forced to proceed exparte against the workman. After considering the entire material on record, the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved against the workman. The Disciplinary authority ac- cepted the repnrt of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on him. The workman had misappropriated the customers fund for his personal use and had made interpulation in the bank record. During the course of enquiry all the relevant documents were supplied to tho workman. Copy of the enquiry report was also given to him to submit his explanation. The workman preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal from service and appeared before the appellate Authority in person to submit his defence. He was heard properly and the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal and held it without any substance. The workman had m<"s topropriated Banks funds to the tune of Rs. 22000 and therefore it was not found justified to retain him in Bank service any more. The order of dismissal from service passed by the management is perfectly legal which is not required to be interfered. No discrimination has been shown by the management In oun'shine the workman. The other cases were decided separately based on d;fferent facts and therefore the workman cannot set the benefit from the decision of the said canes mentioned by him. The misconduct of the workman is of serious nature and therefore he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

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

1. Whether the DE conducted by the management against the workman Is just and proper ?

2. Whether tho management is required to lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman ?

3. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management against the workman is proportionate to the circumstances of the case ?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages 7

5. Relief and costs ?

5. Issue No. 1 and 2 :

It has been held by this tribunal on 3-3-99 that the DE conducted against the workman by the management is just and proper. In view of this finding the management is not required to lead any further evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. Both these issues are answered accordingly.

6. Issue No. 3 and 4 :

The workman wns charfiesheeled for receiving Rs. 7000 from Shri Santosh Kumar Maheswari on 29-6-93 for crediting the same In his TL Account. But it was not credited on the paid date. The workman deposited the said amount in the TL Account of Snntosh Kumar Maheshwari on 10-7-93. In this connection. Shri Santosh Kumar Maheshwari has clearly stated b~efore this court that he had deposited R3. 7000 In his TL Account on 10-7-93 and not on 29-6-93. He had clearly6039 stated that he. never raid Rs. -7000 to the workman to deposit the same on 29-6-93. In this way this statement of account holder Santosh Kumar Maheshwar goes to prove that he had never given Rs. 7000 lo the workman on 29-6-93 to credit the sam- in his TL Account. In view of this very statement, the charge on this point remains not proved. Another saving Bank Account holder Imrat Singh has also stated before this court that on 28-5-93, the workman met him on the way whifa going to the bank. Tho workman asked him to pay Rs. 5000 as a loan to meet his urgent need as he was in some financial difficulties. He therefore gave Rs. 5000 to the work- man as a loan and never deposited this amount in his savinK nccipunt on 28-5-93. Subsequently the workman deposited Rs. 5000 in his account as per his, promise. He had clearly lold the workman that he may deposit the amount whenever he may be able (o do so. This statement of Imrat Singh also does not prove ihe charge on this point.

7. As far a

8. In view of the above said facts, it is held that the work- man shall be entitled to reinstatement without back wages on iinitial pay Of the clerk. Issues No. 3 and 4 arc answered pccoidinijlv.

9. Issue No. 5 :

In view of rav finding qivcn on issue No. 3 and 4, it is held that the workman shall be reinstated without back wages on initial pay of The- clerk within a period of 4 months jrom the dete of nward. Pnrt'es shall bear their own cost.

(0. Copy of the pward be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Offlc-r New Delhi, the 2647>, the Central Government hereby nubl'shes Ihf nword of the Central Government Jndus'rinl Tribunal. Cliennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial D'sput? hetw-en the employers in relation to the m.mni!?m"nt of Ai'nhnbad Bank and their workman, which was recfived by the Central Government on 25-09-2001.

[No. L-12O12/398/94-IRfB-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORF THR CFNTRAL GOVKRNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUIW-CUM-LAPOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 24ih August, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 387/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 22/95) (ID the mt.tter of the dispute for adjudication under clauae (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(AJ of Section 10 of Ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Smt. B. Meeramma and the Management of Allahabad Bank, Madras.)

BETWEEN

Ihe General Secretary, I Party/Claimant Allahabad Bank Staff Union, Madras.

AND

The Regional Manager, . . .. II Party/Management Allahabad Bank, Madias. APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant .. Mis. K. Elango and O. Chamki Raj,

Advocates For the Management .. M|s. O. Venkataramnn, and C.

Ravichandran, Advocates The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2'A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12O12/398/94-IR(B-II) dated 30-05-1995.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 22/95. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to¹ this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No, 387/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side, informintr them f.bnut the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, w;th a d'rection to appear before this Tribunil on 19-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side were present with their respective parties and prosecuted this enstt further.

When *ht matter came up before me for final hearing on 08 06-2001. upon prrusin,? the Claim Statement, Counter S^ement, o'h'er material "pnpirs on record, unon p'rusin". tiie oral and documentary evidence let in on either side and upon perusing the written arguments filed by the lcarncl counsel on cither sk\c nnd this master hnvinij stood over ''I! 'his dflte for consideration, this Tribunal has passed t lr following :—

AWARD

Th- TnJ'i-trinl D'ftnito referred to in th" shove order of reference by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal h as follows :—

"Whether Smt. B. Meerammn was employed with the management of Allahabad Bank, Madras as nnrt-tim* Sweeperess /Pron-cum-Farash 7 If so, whether the demand of Allahabad Bnnk Staff Union Madras on the Monacrment of Allahabad Bank. Mpdras for rrsularization of the services of Smt. R. Mreraivma is Irenl and imifierl ? If so, what relief is Smt. Meeramma entitled to ?"

2. Thf averments in the Clai'm Statemmt filed by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :

The General .Secretary of Aliab'itvui Bunk Staff llnlnn. Madras (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has raised this industrial d i l u te expousinK the cause of Smt. Meeramma alJeciK' >'n the Claim Statement th"t the cnncermM worker was working a" a temoorarv sweener and peon-enm-farash nt the George Town Branch of the P"soondc>n Bank from 1987 to 1993 and was engaged In the Service Branch of the Res-6040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVlNA 28, 1923 [PAfctr H^tet, 3(M>] 25-10-1993 and those who had qualified were interviewed on 22-11-1993. In terms of the said circular, the eligible applicants should forwaid their application thiough the branch where they had worked more than 90 days of the Respon- dent|Bank for consideration on or before 5-4-1993. The Respondent did not receive any application from Smt, B. Meeramma. The Zonal Ofhco, Bombay received her application only on 20-4-1993 beyond the time limit specified regarding the submission of application. Her application was not forwarded through the branch, where she has alleged to have worked. As per the available recoids. Smt. B. Meeramma has never been engaged by the ResponduntlBank. So her application was not considered. There was no nerd for the Respondent to engage her services at its George Town branch or Service branch. So, there is no question of regularizing her services. Smt. B. Meeramma has avaUe 1 a loan of Rs, 3,000 under self-employment for urb.u poor fiom George Town Branch of the Respondent|Bank. She had giiven her name in the loan application form as K. Men. She has also mentioned in the loan application, her address as No. 15, Kalyani Chetty Street (Near Ellamman Kovil Street) Thn uvoh lyur, Madras-19. whereas she had given her name and address in the application for the above recruitment purpose as Smt. B. Meeramma residing at N J. 7, 4th Sheet, Anjaneya Nagar, Royapuram, Madras-13. Tlie Respondent understands that Smt. B. Meeramma is now doing textile[cloth business at Madras. On enquiry, the Respondent was given to understand that Smt. B. Meeramma used to visit Geoige Town Branch of the Respondent[Bank very frequently in connection with the above loan purpose. The said Smt. B. Meeramma was never engaged by the Respond'nt|Bank and 'he was not made payments indirectly through vouchers In the name of permanent staff of the bank. She had not put in more than ?40 days of continuous service in a calendar year as nllf jecl by the Petitioner. So regulanzation of ner service does not flrise at all, She had not qualified and eligible for the post of Peon-cunwFarash. Her application was not considered since the same was directly submitted without complying the foimaljties. She was not called to attend the written exnmination conducted by the Respondent|BanK. Further, the service certificate given bv certain members of the staff is an unauthorised one. No reliance can be olaced upon such certificate. It is not true that the Respondent has orally terminated the services of Smt, B, Meeramma two days after the Union raised the industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Madras. Tbe Petitioner cannot claim the relief of regularizatron of service of Smt. B. Meeromma in admittedly the r>ost of Peon-cum-Fflirfish is a selection post. Hence, the claim of th? Petitioner Union may be dismissed

4. When the mitter was pending before the Tamil Nadu State Tndustrh] Tiibunal ppd came up for enanirv, the con- cerned worker Smt, B. Meeramma was examined as WW1 and (w.-> others wore examined as WW2 and WW3 on the "ide of the Petitioner One witness Mr. ^ndmannhhan was examined BS MW1 and exhibits W1 to W15 and Ml to M16 were marked At this stage the case was transferred to the file of this Court.

5. When the matter came up before this Tribunal for en- fluirv, MW1 was recalled and cross examined Another v H- w"fi far the Manasf-menf wsi examined as MW2 No fuitfier evidencf oral or documentary WHI let in on either side Tbf arguments of the learned counsel on either side were heard.

pondent from 18-8-1994 to 17-10-1994. She was drawing a s-ihuy of Rs. 30 per day at the time of illegal termination of her employment. The concerned worker was employed as a teinpmary labour. Her employment was not shown in the statr register maintained in the bank. The payments were made to her indirecth through voucher prepared in the name of other permanent staff working in that branch. The concerned worker has put in more than 2-^0 days of conti- nuous service in a calendar year and her seivices v/ere not regularised. The management through iis circular No. 322011 dated 8-2-1993 expressed its intention to draw state- wise panels to nil up the vacancies against the post of full time pwn cum farash|full time sweeper from amongst the p rsons who worked on temporary full time basis for a minimum period of 90 days at any i-f the bran:h"s during the period from 1-1-1982 to 31-10-1992 and called for appli- cations from eligible candidates. ID the above said circular, eligibility criteria such as educational qualification and ajre limit v-ere given und the worker has pM fill thj qualifications to apply for ihe post of full time peo'i cum far^h The appli- cation of the worker has to be certified by the Branch Mana- ger aad has to be sent to Zonal Office at Bombay. The Branch Managei refused to forwaul the worker's applica- tion. Hence, the Members of the staff working in George Town Branch asd a few other staff walking in other branches who daily make official visits to the service branch situated in Geoigc Town Branch premises joints certified that the workei WHS employed at George Town Branch from 1987 and that she was not allowed to sign ii. bank's attendance register and that she was receiving her payment on daily basis through the voucher prepared In the name of the peimnncnt emp- loyees cf that branch. The worker concerned forwarded her application wih the certificate giv^n by the members of the staff to the Deputy General Manager, Ailnhnbad Bank, Western Zonal Office and to the Gemini Manager (P&A) Allfhahad Bonk, HO Calcutta. The concerned worker did not iec"ivc anv reply from either >f the offices. The worker's application was not considered is not called to attend the examination conducted by the Rerian.il Office, Mfdrcs. Though this examination was conducted and selec- tion processes are completed, her appointment was kept in oberaucc. The Petitioner Union states (Jim since the service of the conceited worker was not rjguLiiis.'d, it raised an jn- dus'rinl dispihe under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, before ftr" Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Madras en 15-10-1994. As no conciliation was arrived lit tbc concerned authority submitted ilie report on failure of conriliation to the Government -f India. The Government of Ind'i, Ministry of Labour in tu'ii referred this matter as an industrial dispute for adludicatior bv this Tribunal The act of the Management in not regularizinq the services of the concerned worker Smt. B. Meeramnia h illca-?il arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural iustic.j, FhouRh the Res- pondent|Mnnanitment has regularized the services of the ci'iinl labourers, who have worked for 90 day? during (he r-riod from 1-1-1982 to 3-10-1992, it has fniled to regularize ti c ^rviccs of Smt. B. Meeramma. The mannpement instead ^p considering the application of ihe worket have stated in i>'ter falsehood that thev have iat received the application from the worker. The Management h,is ornllv terminated th- 'erv'ce^ of the worker two davs after the union raised the industrial dispute on her behalf before the Regional T-irnur CommiasionT (Central), Madras. The act of the M n't cement in totally arbitrary 'tnd unjustified. Therefore, th's Tribunal mav be pleased to pass ,'in award holdine that 5"iri R Meeramma was a workman of Allahabad Bank and diirctinK the management to regularize the services of the vtorJer.

6. The Point for my consideration is—

1 The averments in the Countjr Statement of the II

P.T'v'Albhnbnd Bnnk are brieflv ns follows :—

"Whether Smt, B. Meernmmn was employed with the management of Allahabad Bank Madras as nart- tfmc SweeperesslPeon-cum-Farrash? ]f <,,>, whether the demand of Alhhnbad Bnnk St/iff Union. Mf>d- 10s 'On the Management of Allahibr

Point :—

The II PartylBank Management (hereinafter referred to us R"srondent). states that the Petitioner union which has purpoited to rn'sc this dispute is a minority union und does not command substantial section of workmen of the bank and consequently it lack representative capaeilty nnd any demand raised by it cannot properly be an industrial dis- pute as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Pe'itoner Union has no valiid right to espouse the griev- ance of Smt. B. Meeramma in terms of' and in tune with the byelaws of Petitioner union. The Respondent/Bank in terms of Circular dated 8-2-1993 issued an advertisement jn local dailies, accordingly, the Respondent had received number of applications from the persons who have claimed to have worked on temporary basis and the eligible candi- date* were permitted to attend the* written test held on

Thoupb it is alleged in the Clnini Statement lhaf the concerned workman is a member of the Petitioner Union, when i" w disputed bv the Respondent in th^ir C.Tintev. no BCCfptable evid'-nfe hns breri clnced before th's Court ;n support of tho Petitioner's nvcrment in the Clfim itatfm-nt Further, a specific stand has been taken in thj Counter of tho Respondent that the Petitioner Union is a minority union nnd does not command substantial section of the workmen •of the bank and consequently it lacks representative capacity and any demand raised by it cannot properly be an industrial dispute as per the Act. Nothing has been stated disputing this stand by way of any reply statement or rejoinder to the Counter by the Petitioner Union. No substantial evidence has also let in, in this case to disprove that contention of the Respondent!Bank about the validity of the Union 1o raise this industrial dispute. The union this not established that Srat. B. Meeromma is its member by filing any docu- ment to that effect. No resolution of the Union concerned to raise the dispute relating to regularizamn of the service of said Smt. B. Meeramma has been filed as a document. Under such circumstances, the objection raised by the Res- pondent! Bank in respect of the authority of the Petitioner Union to raise this industrial dispute espousing the cause of Smt. B. Meeramma is sustainable.

7. Though it is contended by the Peti*ioner Uni-cn that the concerned worker Smt. B. Meeramma was working as temporary sweeper and peon cum Farrash at the George Town Branch of the RespondentlBank from 1987 to 1993 and subsequently of the service branch of the Respondent! Bank from 18-8-1994 to 17-10-1994 the pititioner has ad- mitted that the employment was not shown in the staff regi- ster maintained, in the bank and the paymenis were made to her indirectly through voucher prepared in the name of o'her peinaanent staff working in that branch. Further, no documentary evidence has been filed in this case to prove that the concerned worker Smt. B. Meeramma never worked in any of the branches of the RespondentlBank in the alleged period. Tn the cross examination, WW1 Smt. B. Meerammai has admitted that she has not signed the attendance iegister in the bank and she has not filed any salary receipt or any other document to show that she was ever employed by the b?nk branch. She has also admitted in the cross examination that while submitting her application, in pursuance of cir- cular issued by the RespondentjBank for recniHiment of staff for future employment, the Branch Manager Mr. Satyanarayana refused to give the service certificate WW2 has also stated that Smt. B. Meeramma was not paid salary by the bank directly and a permanent employee of the bank used to get the salary through voucher and paid to Smt. B. Meeramma. Except the oral evidence of WW1 to WW2 nc other substantial documentary evidence has been filed into Court to prove the averment of the Petitioner (hat she was working as a, temporary sweeper and peon cum farrash from 1987 to 1993 at George Town Branch and from 18-H-1994 to 17-10-1994 at the Service Branch of the R?spondent|BanK.

8. If really the concerned worker Smt. 8. Meevaranu. was engaged bv the RespondentlBank branches there will be documents to that effect by the bank in those brunches. Tt is the definite contention of the Respondent tint during the relevant periods there was no need for the ResoondetitlBank to- engage any casual peon cum farrash at those branches of xhf bank and tfiev had already sufficient staff members. The Manacer of Georee Town Branch as a repiv to Reeiona¹ Manager letter under Fx. M8 has stated under Er. M9 dated 70-10-1994. that Smt. B Mepramma had never been engager! b.v th° said branch. The Manager of the Service Branch alw under F.x, M10 h id stated that Smt. B. Meerammn had never been eneageH bv the said branch For the letter dated 27-11-1994 linger Fx. M^ sent bv Regionnl Manner to the M^noor. G'orpe Town Branch bv his 'Mter d'-i'erl 28-11-94 "nder Fx. "Ml/I hid '•"affirmed tint, the s'"d Smf R Meenfrrrm had never been ptioarred '" the "aid hi"ir>ch. T.ike th"t *nr fhe letter i,-rW TJX_ M12 of the Renionfl Mnnnef th" Mnn^ser p* S T VW Branch under Ex- Ml"' has informed that ⁵mt. R. Meernrnm" h""1 never heen einflgeJ 'n *hft b r a n ch A t ^ i r t ^t • * V 'Q * ha p e t i t i o n er T T n i o rs h as n ot t a k en " T IV s t em • • -> p s t r W c t, i tq - ' TH * h at ) t *" r n r c m p fl " ' n r 1 r p >" Smt. B. MePramma was ever worked in those branches at the alleged period. WW2 has eiven evidence that Fx. W2 was piven bv the staff of the bank in .suppoit of the said Smt. R Meernmma to show that she worked in the Res- pond^nt|Bfink branches. The signrtories of Fx. W2 have" not nutborjsed to issue one such certificate for ernp'ovment. Thouah i' is mentioned in the Cflim S^ftemeit iKit the fnVi wnikr- was employed for two months ir. Service Branch, she has deposed that *" worked for f'vo vents in 'he ^ n f '^ PrTnrp An aftemnt has been mar!'" bv nrodiicinc Fx. W15 *T nrrwo "mt. "R Meprnmma had worked in the bank brr>p<*h ^v_ W15 in th" " " " i r il of xerox con" of FT- W2. From +he evi'lenc" of WW2. it -s s°'n that F.x. Wf> :s " er-ntorl ^ " i m mi imt to fipiri the w i + =r Smt. R Mo"TOnmi

604' from the eidence that the concerned worker has not routed her application as required in the Circular through the Branch Manager with the certificate evidencing engagement of Smt B. Meeramraa during the peiiod 1-1-1982 to 31-10-1992. Fuithcr the application was received by Zonal Office directly from Smt. B. Meeramma only on 20-4-1993 belatedly and the last date was fixed for receipt of application on or before 5-4-1993. So her application was not considered by ihe RespondentlBank and she has not attended any written test and had not attended any intciview subsequently. It is_ not disputed that only the eligible temporary-employees engaged between 1-1-1982 to 31-10-1992 who got thrwjg,i in the written examination and also interview conducted by the bank were considered for empanelling for absorption against future vacancies for sub staff in the RespondentlBank. From ihe available evidence, it is seen that trje Petitioner has failed to establish _ that the said worker Smt. B. Meeramma was ever worked in the bank branches especially, during the alleged period. The alleged violation of Section 25F of the Industr;al Disputes Act does not arise, as Smt. B. Meeiamma was not proved to be in the employment of Allahabad Bank. Hence, under sveh circumstances, it can be easily concluded, that the Petitioner Union has miserably failed to prove that the concerned worker Smt. B. Meeramma worked as a tempo- rary sweeper and peon cum farrash at the George Town Branch as well as the Service Branch of the Respondent! Bank and she was illegally terminated from service by the Responudenf. So, it can be held that Smt. B. Meeramma was not a workman of Allahabad Bank and the question of her regularisation of her service by the RespondentlManagement does not at all arise. So, the Petitioner Union cannot get the relief prayed for to the worker Smt. B. Maeramma. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

9. In the r-sulf, an award is passed holding that the demand of Allahabad Bank Staff Union, Madras' for regu- larization of services of workman Smt. B Mesrammi by the management of Allahabad Pink, Madras is not legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman Smt. B. Meeramma i" not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected ?nd pronounced bv me in the op?n court on this day the 24*h August, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

For I PartylCJaimant :

WW1 Smt. B. Meeramma

WW2 Shri G. Narayanan

WW3 Shri D. Mu*hu

For IT PartylManagement :

MW1 Shri G. Padmanabhara

MW2 Shri M. Venkatachalam

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For T PartyJWorkman :

Ex. No. Date Description.

Wl ^0-3-93 Xerox copy of the application form of Smt. B. Meeramma.

W2 5-4-93 Xerox copv of the joint certificate given to the worker by staff of Respondent.

W3 1-10-94 Xerox copv of the letter from Smt. B Meeramma to the Allahabad Bank Staff Union.

W4 15-10-94 Xerox copv of the letter from Petitioner Unron to Regional labour Commissioner (Central").

W5 19-10-94 Xerox cotiv of the letter of Smt • B Meeramma to Allahabad Bink Staff Union.

W6 31-10-94 X"ro-r PODV of the letter of Management fo Assistant Labour Commissioner ("Central).

W7 9-11-94 Xerox copV of the letter of Resnond"nf|Bank to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

\V10 1012-94 XIMUJI cjny of (he letter of Petitioner Union (o Assistant I nhour Commissioner (Cenfmli.

Wli 14-12-94 Xerox copy of failure of conciliation report.

WI2 Nil Xfi'ox copy of I ho school liiinif'.T ccrrificM < --"- issued lo the woiker.

W13 27-11-91 Xeiox copy of the identity card issue-J hy the Employment F\cli;u]j'i.- to the Worker.

W14 23-3-93 Xerox copy of the community eurti/icaic of Smt. B. Mccramma.

W15 5-4-93 Xciox copy ot the joint certificate given by the Staff of Respondent to the worker, For the I[ Party| Management :

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml Nil Xciox copy of loan replication for scif-Vmi- loyment for self.

M2 13-1-92 Xeiox copy of loan smteliom'ni; lelier M3 series — Xerox copy of loan averment, bill voucher, security, deciaraibn u-wdiiitf (lie .siril lonn.

M4 8-2-93 Xerox ee.p\ of instruction rircmar No 3220)1.

M5 6-3-83 Xrrox copv of the publionii'in of adverhVe.- tnenl by the Management.

Mfi 20-4-94 Xerox copy of the application form of Smt.

B. Mceramma.

M7 15-10-94 Xerox copy of letter of ilie Petitioner to the Regional I abour Commissioner (Central).

M8 27-10-94 ~Xcro\ cony of letter fiom Regional Office to George Town Branch.

M9 28-10-94 Xerox copy of letter of G.T. Branch to Regional Office.

M10 28-10-94 Xerox copy of letter from Service Branch Manner to the Regional Office Manager, Mil 22-11-94 Xerox copv of the letter fiom Regional Office to (IK- G.T. Branch.

M12 22-11-94 Xerox copy of letter from Regional Odieo to Service Br\nch.

MI3 28-11-94 Xerox copy of letter fro;n Seivici- Bnn<.h to Regional Office.

M14 28-11-94 Xerox copy uf letter horn G.T Branch K> Regional Office

M15 24-11-94 Xorox copy of thr letd-r from O.T. Branch to the Regional Office.

Ml 6 21-5-99 Xerox copy of letter from the G.T. Branch to Regional Office.

hereby publishes the award of Hie. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chcnnai as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute bUwceu the employers in relation to ihe minugement of Allaluihad Bank and their workman, which Vwi-i received by Ihu Centnil Government on 25-09-2001.

[No. L-12012/399/94-IR(B-Il)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secv.

ANN1-XURE

BEFORE THL CENTRAL GOV1 RNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBl'NAL-f UM-LAHOUR COURT, CTIHNNA1 Friday', the 24th August, 20" 1

AND

PRESENT :

K, Kaithikeyan, Presiding Ollicer

Industrial Di"pu(e No. 386/2001

rT;;m;l Nadu State Indf.lnal Tribunal I.D. No. 20/95) fin the mutter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section JO of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Woikmsin Shri C. N," Dusharathan and the Manage- ment of Allahabad Bank, Madras.)

BETWEEN

TJie General Secretary, . . .. I Parly/Claimant Allahabad Bank Staff Union, Madras.

AND

The Regional Manner II Party /Management Allahabad Hank, Madras,

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant—M|s. K. FJango & G. Chamki Raj, Advocates For Ilisf Manajjcmen*—M/s. G. Venkataraman & C.

Ruvichandrnn, Advocates The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise i)! powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) anj sub-section 2(Al of S-ction JO of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have ivfentd the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012/399/94-IR(B-II1 da led 12-05-1995. •

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the 11 Pauy|

Management are briclly as follows :—

iiral mid documentary evidence let in on either side and upon perusing ilic written aiguments filed by the learned counsel ou either sale and this matter having stood over t.ll iliis date tor consideration, thi., Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The fndustiial Dispute referred !o in the above older of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this I"ii- bunal is as tollows : —-,

"Whether Shri C. N. Dasharathan, casual workman, was a "workman' of Allahabad Bank, Jawah:ir Nagar Branch, Madras? Jf so, whether the demand of Alal- habad Bank Staff Union, Madras on the Manage- ment of Allahabad Bank, Madras for regularization of his services is justified? If SQ, wlv-it lelief is the said workman entitled to?"

2. 1 he averments in the Claim Statement filed by the 1

PaitylClaimant arc briefly as follows : —

The Petitioner Union is a minonty union and docs not command sul'sianual section of the workmen of the bank and consequently, it lacks representative capacity and any liemand raised by \y cannot properly be an ietlusliii.il dispute .is pei the hidus.r.al Disputes Aet, 1947. In terms of a Cir- culai dated 0-2-1943, Respondent!Hank issued advertisement, in local dailies calling for application from the persons who worked on tempoiaiy|lull time basis for a period of ninety days in any of (he branchcs|otfices of Allahabad Bank|United Industrial Bank Ltd. during the period 1-1-H2 to 31-10-92 and|or were engaged prior lo 1-1-&2 and continued thereafter wiih an intention to draw slate-wise panel to 1111 up iuturc vacancies against the post of Full time Heon-cum-FarrashlFull time Sweeper, subject to then suitabilily and fulfilment of the other conditions specified in this regard. Accordingly, the Respondent has leceicd number of applications from the persons who have claimed to have worked and the eligible can- didates were peimittcd to attend the written test held on 25-10-1993 and those who had qualified were interview on 22-11-1993. In terms of the above circuluar, the eligible applicant should forward their applications through, 'die branch, wheic they nad worked for more tha.i 90 days to the Bombay Zonal Office of the Respondent Bank for their considciation 'On or before J5-4-93 along with requisite certi- ficates. Ihc Respondent|Managemcnt did not receive any application from the concerned workman Sri C. N. Dashara- thun through the branch, where he has alleged to have work- ed. On enquiry, it i.-, observed that the concerned workman had submitted his application directly to the Zonal Office, Bombay, whiUi was received oily on 21 -5-1993 by thai office beyond the time limit specified regarding submission of application. Further his application was not forwarded througn the blanch where he has alleged to have worked along with the requisite certificate, as per the available recJrds, Sri C.N. Dashaiathan has never been engaged by the Respondent[Bank. In view of these reasons, his application >vas not considered. Tne re was no need for the Respondent to engage the services of the concerned workman at its Jawahnr Nagar Branch, since that branch was provided with one peon-cum-daftry, one peoii-cum-bill collector and one part-time sweeper during Ihc relevant period from March, I9K9 to March 1992. There- fore, the claim of the Petitioner Union that Sri C. N. Dasha- ralhan was engaged by Jawahar Niigar Branch of the Res- pondent is not correct and as such the said workman cannot he any claim against Ihe Respondent conscqucuntly, thete is no question of legularizing his services, The said workman was nol eligible for applvmg t<_' the post of full-time peon- eiim-farrash in terms of the ciicular. It is incorrect to allege thai the then branch manager refused to forward Mr. C. N. Da'Jiaiafha.i'¹ application and Ihe members of the staff work- ing in Jawahar Nagar Branch jointly certified that Mr. C.JN. Dasharathan was the employee for more thai 240 days in each year fiom March, 1989 lo March 1992. Absorption for temporary staff as regular employee is not automatic. It is based on written test and oral interview, which the candi- date seeking absorption on regular basis should pass. 'I he Pe- tioncr does not deserve the grant of relief cought for. Hence, the Jiibunal nriy be pleased lo dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

4. When the matter WHS pending before the Tamil Nadu Slate Industrial Tiihnu.i) and came up for enquiry, the con- cerned woilnwn Mr. C.N. Dasharathnn was examined as WWI and another witness as WW2 nnd documents wee maiked as E\. Wl to Wll and Ml to. M14. On the side of the management, pivxif of affidavit of one Mr. Padmannbhan was marked At this staue, this case was transferred to the file of this Comt.

5. When the matter came up before this Tribunal for enquiry, the person who filed Ihc proof of affidavit on behalf of the Management w.is examined as MW1 in full. After, it was represented by ihe counsel on either side that they have r,u more evidence to let in, the learned counsel on either side had filed (heir written arguments.

fi. The point for my consideration is—

The I Party|Allahabad Bank Staff Union ^presented by its General Secretary espousing the cause cf ivoikman Sri C. N. Dasharathan has raised this industrial dispute. 1 he Puny I Allahabad Bank Stall" Union (hciein.ificr referred to as Petitioner) alleged in the Claim Statement that the cuti- cerned employee was employed as full time Pcon-cum-Farrash under ihe II Parly|Allahabad Bank, Madras (hereinafter IC- ferred to as Respondent). The employment of the concern- ed workman was not shown in the staff register maintained in the bank. The payments were made to him indirectly through vouchers prepared in the name of other permanent staff working in that branch. Though the worker has put in three ye

"Whether Shri C-N. Dasharnthan, casual workman, was a 'workman' of Allahabad Bank, Jawahar Nagar Rianch, Madras? if cO whether the demand of Allahabad Bnnk Staff Union, Madras nn Ihe lU.ina- pement or A'lnhabrid nank, Midras fo- repuhiiza- tion of his sericrs is iustified? Tf so. what relief is the said workman entitled, to?"6044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASViNA 28, 1923 [PAJVI It—SEC. 3(ii)J ljuint :•—

ii is the c '.se ui me l-V.titioner Union thai the concerned workman Sn V. is. uaMiaiartliuti was working as a Peon cum FaruUi Lit Juvvuhar Nagar Brunch of me- Resp-ondentl Bunk i .w iviun-ii, iyyy to March i:Jyz and suvweijucntiy, he was employed m trie V.H. Colony branen ot the; Respondent! b a nk h um i'J.yJ Lu A u g u s t, l y ^ J. li is aiso in..- vcisiu.. ui the Petitioner Jiiwn in ihe Claim Smlemcin that the con- cerned wojkmtui was illegally terminated Irom service and at the time oi .iieu leniui^mon 01 emeploymenl, he was draw- ing ti)u salaiy oi Ks. M per day. Tnc Respondent Bank, in their counter lias euany disputed tins aveirncnl in ihe Claim t>iaicmcnt saaung tliUt me concerned workman has never been engaged by the Ro,pundeni|Llank and tliey denied the alle- gation al)out the alleged employment ot ttie concerned work- man by the two branches ot the ResponJent|Bank lor the peiiod mentioned in me LJami Statement and also about the drawing ol salary as Rs. IK) per day. Aganst this dcn.al made by the Respondent iBank in their Counter Statement, the Petitioner Lmon has not iHed any rejoinder 'jr reply state- ment, ihe concerned woikman Sri C. W. Dasharalhan while giving evidence us vvVVl ha.s admitted that there was no attend- ance icgister for him while he was employed by the Res- pondent buuk branches and he was paid his sulaiy through the voucher Mgned by peimuneat start of the hank. In Paia 2 oi Ihc Claim Statement iiselt, ihe Petitioner has staled lhat the concerned workei was employed as casual labour and he was not shown in ihe si all jegisler maintameJ in the bank and the payments wti'e made to him mdiiectly through vou- chees prepared in the name of other stall" working in that branch. In the erois examination, WW1 has admitted that he has not filed any document in the Court in proof of his emp- loyment by ihe RespondentjBank branches as mentioned in the Claim Statement, It is also his admission in the cross examination that one has to suceed in the written test as well as Ihe interview conducted by the bank Management lor getting employed ;n the Respundent/Bank. WW2 Shri Rajkumm had deposed that when he was working in the Jawahar Nagar Branch of the Bank, the concerned wo, k- man Sii C. N. Dasharathan was working in tlw branch us sub staff from 1989 to 1992, He has admitted in the cross examination that the name of Sri C. N. Dasharathan was not in the attendance register for the staff of th^ bank and he does rot know whether any salary was paid to him or not. MW1 has stated in his proof of affidavit that for Ihe later dated 15-10-94 sent by the Regional Manager of the Respoii- dcnt|Bank seeking lemavks from the Manager of Jawahar Nagar Branch with icgard to the alleged employment of said Sri C. N. Dasharathun in the said bank u:idcr lix. M6, Jawa- har Nagar Branch Manager sent a reply dated 19-4-1994 undei lix, M7 that the said C. N. Dasharathan ha.s never bc^n engaged by the said bianch. In the cross examination alst, he has stated that the RespondentjBank day roll employed temporary Peon-cum-Farrash, From this it is seen that except the averment in the Claim Statement on the oral evidence of WW1 and WW2 there is no documentary evidence to show that the concerned woikman Sri C.N. Oashm^than was emp- loyed by the Respondent|Bank branches as contended uy them.

7. It is admitted th.it the Rcspondent]Bunk by their Cir- cular dated 8-2-1993 lix. MI and also by udverlisi'ment iii 1'Ocal dailies called for applications to draw siuUtwise panels to fill up future vacancies against the post of Full Time Pco.i Cum Farrash, Full time Sweeper fivm amongst the persons who worked as temporary|full time basis lor i period of 90 day in any of the branches /offices of Allahabad Bank or Uni¹- ed Industrial Bank Ltd. during the period 1-1-1982 lo 31-10-1992 and[or were engaged prior to 1-1-1'J82 and conit- nucd thereafter. It is the contention of the RespomlentlHaiv in tlie Counter Slatcmem that in response to the Circular and advertisement in news dailies, they hove icceived number ot applications from the persons who have claimed to have wor- ked on temporary bnsis and the eligible candidates were per- mitted to attend the written test held on 25-10-1993 and those who infuet qualified were interviewed on 22-11-199,?. It is not disputed thai the eligible applicants should forward their applications throtiph the branch, where they hnvc worked for more than 90 d ay to the Bombay Zonal Office of the Respondent|Bank for ihe consideration o\\ or before 5-4-1993 along with requisite certificate. It is admitted in the Conntc Statement that Sri C. N. Dasharathan had submitted his appli- cation directly to the Zonal Office of the Rrspor.vlenllBnnk Bombay and the sime was received only

to have worked along with the requisite certihcute. in the L Laitn btutenient p;uu t> ihc femioner n;is aUmuied mm me application oi me worker lias to tje eerliiiid by tlie JJianch ivian.igei and uas 10 be sent lo me z.o.iai u:uce at bombay and mat tut mon ui'aneu Manager lelused hi lorwaru the WOIKL-I s application and lieuce the members ot the stall wotkmg m juwtiiuu Nagai iii"in.n joimiy CCUIDLU itiai me worker was employed lor moie tuan 240 Jays in each yeai tunn Mmcii, lyc.9 to JMaicn, i^y2 and iiie vvi,ikc.- lorwaided his application with that certincate given by trie membeis of the siait'tu the Regional Manager, Allahaoad Bank, Madras tuid the Deputy General ivlanager, Allahabad Bank, Wetitern /.onai OttiwU, Domcmy and to me ueiiejal iviaiiujjei II-U,AI, Allahabad bank, HO, Calcutta. From this admissim uf the PetiLioiier in ttie- C l a i m, S t a t e m e n i, it is seen t h ai me c . i — m- cd workman's appplication has not been sent to the Zonal Office at Bombay, lne Respondent Regional I/ianager, Alla- habad Bank Regional OJtice, Madras Iws stated in the Counter that only on 21-3-93 beyond the time hmit specified leyaiuing submission of application. Respondent has received the application ot the concerned woikman ind that application was not roiwarded through the branch whets he ha-i alleged to have worKtd WW1 and \VW2 have admuce-.l in their evi- dence as it is pleaded in the Claim Statement that the mem- bers of the stuff working in Jawahar Nagar Bianch jointly eei uhed that the concerned worker was employed at Jawahar Nagar branch from March, 19N9 to March, 19'.>2 and for- warded his application along wjth that eertthcitj given by the Members ot the start. It is further alleged m the Clnim Ijiatcment lhat Ihe workers application was noi considered and he was not called to attend the examination conducted by the Regional Office. Ex. KW2 series ire the xerox; copies ot the concerned workman s application with annexures. Ex. W3 is the xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement wheic- in the dates of receipt as ditlerenl dates in the month of. May 1993. This shows that the application was not submil- tcd by the concerned workman Sri C. N, Dasharathan before ihe last day of submitting application i.e. by 5-4-1993. Fur- ther the said application was not submitted through the Branch Manager of Jawahar Nagar Bianch at Allahabad Bank as required in the circular Ex. Ml, in the xerox copy ol the letter said to have been sent by the staff of Jawahai Nagar Branch as an enclosure to the application for the eonciincvl workman pevcti people have signed, One of the sis- nutories to that Icttei Sii S. Rajkumar has been examined as WW2. It is his evidence that the Brandt Manager had in- formed that the said C.N. Dasharathan 's not qualified for the sub stuif recruitment at that time and ht-nce, they gave that Ex. VV3 letter for the concerned workman. He has a'so admitted in his evidence only the Branch Manager can for- ward the- application form of the workman, who employed more than 90 days. The said letter given by those staff of the bank docs not cotitnin the date. WW2 bas also admitted in the cioys examination, none of the signatories to that letter has put the date in it. From all these things, it is seen that no document is available to show thai the cqn:.-rned work- man- Sri C. N. Dasharathan was ever worked in Ihe Jawahar Nngar branch as claimed by him. On the other hand the letters of the Branch Manager Ex, M7 and Mil clearly shows lhat the said workman was never engaged in Jawahar Najror Branch. The Petitioner Union has nof taken any steps to esta- blish his case by arty believable evidence. Further there is no evidence to show that the concerned workman worked fo more than 240 days except his own version. Fx. W3 letter said to have been given bv the staff of Jawah-ir Nagar Branch in favour of the concerned workman also q'lrinot be relied upon as a true and authenticated document. WW2 has ad- mitted that his Union leaders asked him to sign Hx. W3 nnd so he signed it. Therefore, no value can he attached to Ex. W3. Further it is evident that the upplicalioi of the con- cerned workman was received by the Respondent]Manage- ment as it is evidenced from (he xerox copy -oi ihe postal acknowledgement only in the month of Mav, lone subse- quent to the dale of receipt of application on 5-4-1993. That was why the application said lo hnvc been sent by ihe con- cerned workman was not considered by the Respondent! Bank. Besides the application was sent belatedly, it was not sent through the Branch Mnnagt-r with his certificate of service. It was nko not stated in the Claim Statement as to when the coin-erred workman approached the Rranch Mnnnper of the Responded |B;mk for the certificate and when they have declined (o certify about his employment. As WW1 in the cross examination, he has admitted the same. In imv event, the eligible temporary employees engaged between 1-1-198?. and 3M0-1992 should wt ihrough in'the viiften ftamiiiafon anrl nlw Hie interview conducted by the batik as per the norms fixed by the bank. Then only, the names6045 Of such eligible candidates will be included in the panel for ansoiption against future vacancies of sub-start in the Kes- pondentltiank, The allegation of ihe Union that the con- ceincd employee was paid through vouchers drawn on the pamancnt umployucs oii.tiic bank, also cannot be acceptable and they cannot be taken as a proof of employment of the concerned workman in ite branches of the Respondent! Bank dining the alleged pciiod. If really U\c concerned workman was employed in the Jawjhai Nagar branch a¹- allqgud in the Claim Statement as temporary employees, tlicic would have been some recotds available in the branch itself and the Branch Manager would not have refused .to giant >jiie such requisite certificate fw forwarding nis application to the Zonal Office at Bombay. From: this, it is seen that the Petitioner Union has not established their claim for the relief they prayed for the concerned workman.

8. Though it is alleged in the Claim Stalmnent lhal the concerned wurkman is a inembei of the Petitioner Union, when it is, disputed by the Respondent in ttv-ir Counter, no acceptable evidence has been placed . befoic this Court in support of the Petitioner averment in the. Claim Statement. Further, a specific stand has been taken m the Counter of the Respondent that the Petitionei Union is a minority union and does not command substantial section of the workmen ot the bank arid consequently it takes representative capacity and any demand raised by it cannot properly be an indusliial dispute ns per the Act, Nothing has been stated disputing this stand by way of any reply statement or rejoinder to the Counter by the Petitioner Union. No substantial cvki^nc- has also let in. in this cacse to disprove that contention of the Respondent/Dank about the validity of the Union to raise this industrial dispute.

y. In view of the above findings, .it is seen that the Peti- W7 12-11-94 Xerox copy of the letter of Petitioner Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)- W8 1-12-94 Xerox copy of ,the letter of Petitioner Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

W9 1-12-94 Xeivx cqpy of the letter of Management to Assiilunt LUIMTJUT Commissioner (Central).

WTO 10-12-94 Xerox copy of Ihe letter of Petitioner Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner (.Central).

Wll 14-12-'J4 Xeiox copy of failure of conciliation report.

For the II Partyl.Management :

Ex. No, Date Description

M-l 8-2-93 Xerox copy • of Memo No. CRIK3|90.

M2 13-12-91 Xeiox copy of acknowledgement of CO. M3 21-2-92 Xeiox copy pf cwieCllation of .Memo>No.

CR|K3|9O of the charge sheet,

M4 21-2-92 Xerox copy of tjie Fresh chirge sheet Memo No. CR|K3f90.

M5 25-2-92 Xerox copy of the acknowledgement ot CO.

M6 Nil Xerox copy of letter of the Petitioner to the Management.

M7 23-3-92 Xerox copy of letter of the Petitioner to the Management.

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

M9 22-4-92 Xerox copy of daily order sheet No. 2.

M10 24-K-92. 25-8-92, 27-8-92, 28-8-92 Xerox copy of deposition of PW1 to PW6.

M il 28-8-92 Xerox copy of the deposition of the Peti-6046 TfrE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PXRT IT--Sec. 3(iij] New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001 S.O. 2859.— In puis.iii.ncc of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award or the Centra! Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chennai its shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rchilron to the management of Pandyan Oi'iiraa Bank a rj their workman, which was letcivcd by the Central Government on 20-9-2001.

l'No. L-12012|b17[98-IR(Bl)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRI3U- NAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the 21st August, 2001

PRESENT :

K, Kuithikcyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 121|2()01

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 92|99) (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 Induslrinl Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri V. Meyyappan and the Manag muit of Pundyun Grama Bank, Virudhunagar.)

BETWEEN

Si i V. Meyyappan.

I Party/Workmun.

AND

II Party/Management The Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudhunagar,

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M|s. PVS. Giridhar & Rajem Ramada^s Advocates, For the Management : Sri N.G.R. Pras.id, Advocate. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-se;;tion (1) and sub-section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Aft, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12O12|617|9S|IR (B-I) dated 4-5-99.

This reference has been made earlier hi the Tamil' Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it WHS taken on file as I.D. No. 92]99. When the matter was jusnclinq enquiry in Ii|at Tribunal, the Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribu- nal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, ihe case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 12l|200l and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer oi this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 1-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present with their respecthc parties and prosecuted this case further.

This matter came up before me for final hearing on 6-7-2001, upon perusing the Claim Slat-.-ment. Counter Statement, the other material paper", on record, the docu- mentary evidence let in on either side and unon hc-i'iinu the arguments of learned counsel on :_-ith?r side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :--

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute refeired to in the nbow order of reference by the Central Govt. for adiin1''c:itk>n by this Tribunal is as follows : —

"Whether the action of the "' -i . m-nt of P.mdivnn Ornma Fan]* in letrminaiinu (he srrvire- Of the workman. Sliri V. Meyyapiinn k justified ? If nol, to what relief he is entitled ?

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party/ Workman are briefly as folk>ws :--

Tho 1 Parly/Workman Sri V. Meyyappan (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has joined the service in the II Party/Management Barjk (hereinafter referred to as Respon- dent) on 1-12-80 as Sweeper-cum-Mcsscngcr on a casual basis. His services were confirmed and le^ulurizcd as a messenger by an order dated 16-10-81. The Respondent had issued a charge memo dated 21-8-94 to the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner had abused his position in tak- ing possession of the branch jewel loan ':arJ without the knowledge of the Manager and made use o[ it for private lending to make it appear to be pledged with the Raghu- nathapuram branch of the bank and that he h'vl betrayed an illetcrate party causing damage to the Bank's image. The petitioner by his letter dated 22-3-94 denied that charges. The domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Offi- cer submitted a report dated 3-2-96 holding that the Peti- tioner is guilty of all the charges. He conducted the en- quiry in the prejudiced manner and in violation of principles cf natural justice. He submitted his findings without assessing the evidence in an impartial manner. The show cause notice dated 27-3-96 was issued to the Peti- tioner. The Petitioner hud submitted his reply dated 22-4-96, However, the Respondent by his order dated 1-6-96 dis- missed (he Petitioner from service. The Petitioner pre- ferred an uppeal dated 14-7-96 to the Boaid of Directors. His appeal WHS rejected by an order dated 9-7-97. Neither th? Disciplinary Authority not the Appellate Authority have considered the evidence and iecords independently. Without giving adequate reasons, they have cho.i^n to agree with the perverse findings of the Hnquiry Officer mechani- cally. The two witnesses examined on the side of the management, have given hearsay evidence. There are various contradictions between their testimony. The com- plainant Mr. Palani who gave the signed statement Ex. ME7 has not been examined on the side of the Management, that as a defence witness, he denied the allegation,, that the Petitioner had issued a jewel loan to him and he had rrot made any complaint as staled by MW1. There is no evidence to show that the Petitioner had committed for- gery. The alleged forged signature of the Manager was not referred to any handwriting expert for opinion. Tho penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the charge. The Petitioner's past record of service has not been considered, while passing the impugned order of dis- missal. The said order is violative of the principles un- der Articles, 14, 16 und 21 of the Constitution. The dispute raised by the Petitioner before the conciliarion officer ;n- ded in a failure. On his submission of failure of concilia- tion report, the Govt. have referred this dispute for adjudication bv this Tribunal. The Tribunal .nay be plea- sed to hold that the dismissal of the Petitioner is illegal and unjustified and direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petilioner in service with back wages, and all attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter .Statement of the II Pai ty|Managcment are briefly as follows :-

The Petitioner availed frequent leave without Head Office's permission. He has availed leave on los-i of p,iv ot 132 days violating Hank's Staff Service Regulations and he wns cautioned by the General Manager on 22 2-93. There was no violation of principles of natural justice while con- ducting the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after analyzing carefully the evidence on either sid? gave the finding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had followed all th? procedures and principles properly, .while passing orders. Fair and reason- able onportunitv was eiven to the Petitioner to put forth his defence effectively. The proved crnri'i'-i are very serious in nature involving moral turpitude such as for- gery, bctraval of illiterate customer, causing damage to image of the bank etc. which warrants defrrenl penaltv Considering the gravity of the charges and also to safeguard the interest of the bnnk. Disciplinary Authority passed appropriate final order and the simie wns confirmed bv the Appellate Authoritv. Enauirv was ordered and conducted as per existing Staff Service Reeulatrons of the Hank. Un- der such circumstances, no violation of Article 11, 16 und 21 of the Constitution has been done, Tn ense, if the Tri- IIIITIIII comes to the conclusion Ihnf the findings of Fnqtiiiv Officer ure perverse the bank may be given a chance t"r establish the eharce¹; before this forum. Henc?, the claim may be dismissed.

4. The Point for my consideration i s :~

"Whether I he action of the Management of Pnndiy.m Gr;imn Bank in teiminuting iho services of the workman, Shri V. Meyyappan is jtijlificii ? II not, to what relief he is entitled 7"

Point:---

eviA-ncJ. Coiiy;qucntly, the oidcr passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the bi^is of the find.ng given by the Enquiry Oliicei- in liis report lius lo be set aside and the confirmation of penally imposed by the Di:-ciplinary Authority and by the Appellate iiiithorty also has lo be set aside, It is the further contention of the learned counsel foi the I'elitioncr that the two witnesses in Lix. M5i6) complaint were ulso not examined by the Management in the domestic enquiry and when the author of the complaint himself giving evidence as DW1 has not supported the Management version, the conclusion of the liiiquiry Officer that the charge huscd on the witness Palani\> complaint hus been pioved is inconcct. For that the Enquiry Officer himself has assumed that it is an act of forgery committed by 'he charge sheeted employee, since, no expert opinion is available as an handwriting expert, lo examine the writiim; in the gold pledge, card. So, there is no basis for the Enquiry OHicer's coiiclunon that the chaise sheeted employee has committed forgery, the evidence given by the Manapcm.'nt WIIJK'SS in respect of the complaint of Mr, Palani amounts to only hcar.-av evidence and none of Ihe Manag;- niL-nt witness iias staled that ihe charge sheeted employee has comnvtted forgeiv and henci¹ the finding of Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner hiis commiUed forgery has no basis. Hence, it is n case of no evidence and the findings given by the Knquiry Officer in bis vcpovt i; pfciversc. So, it has got to be set aside and the punishmeni. imposed by the Respondent ' Hartt all'*"inj> that it is a riroved misconduct is also not correct and it has also to be set aside arm an award is to be passed holding dial I hi- action of ihe Management of Pandyan Gniin i Bank in terminating the services of the Petitioner is unjustified ,ind the Mutiajjemi.'iit must be directed to reinslate Ilie Petitioner in service wiUi all attendant benefits.

i i , i' ir h •• b . ' ml on ' l - ! 2 - ^3 Sn i he c h n r t rc b a s ed n n on < I T>

ting the sci vices of the v.oikmmi Sri V. Mcyyappan is justified Ileiut;, the concerned woiknvui is, not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated 1o thi- Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by mi in the open court on th's day the 21M August, 2001,i

K. KARTH1KEYAN, Presiding Officer levelled attaint the Petitioner/Workman was proved cannot said lo be iu perverse finding as the Disciplinary Authority having considered, the same and the said misconduct very much'reflects the moral'tuipilude of the concerned employee and also damage the image of the bank, apart from the con- cerned employee having shown he has conducted a parallel hanking dolriment to the inteiest of the bank's business, has imposed iho, adsui.ute punishment as per the prevailing clause in the Bipartite Settlement. Hence, the action of the Manage- meni can be held as justified.

Witnt'sst:, Examined :

For 1 Parly • Workman :

On either .side : None,

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For I Party/Workman :

Fx. No. l);ite Description

Wl 28-01-94 Xerox copy of the charge sheet.

W2 22-03-9-1 Xciox cojiv of the letter from the Pe'i-

tioner tq Ihe Manouenient.

\V3 1K-()]-9f) Xeiox copy of the enquiry report.

W! 23.-03-96 Xerox copy nf the show cause notice.

W5 06-03-98. X.;ro\ copv of the petition filed by the

Petitioner before the Conciliation Officer,

W)H Xerox copy of the letter from Manage.

merit to the Conciliation Officer.

W7 09-08-98 Xerox copy of the Petition fiWI by the

Petitioner I'nion bcfoie Conciliation Officer,

WS 21-10 98 Xe.-on copy of the report on failure of

conciliation.

For the Tl Party/M:tnnfieinent :

F\, No. Date Drscription

Ml 22-02 93 Xerox copv of the warning letter issued

to fh.- Petitioner by the Management.

M2 28-02-.% Xerox copy of the letter from the Peti-

tioner to the ManiijTemcnt.

M3 NM Xeiot copy of the enquiry proceedings

M4 Nil Xerox copy of the enquiry report.

M5 scries (9) Xerox eopv of the Management exhibits.

Ni-w Delhi, the 2lst September, 2001 7. A perusal of the entire records in this case, clearly shows that the hnquiiv OtTieei after analyzing the evidence let in, in the domestic enquiry hoi given a finding holding that the Petiijontr, th-j charge sheeted employee, had com- mitl\d an aci of misconduct :is alleged in- the charges and fill the charges have boon proved. So, it cannot be said (hut the Enquiry Officer has given a finding without any evidence and Jils finding is perverse. Ai pul forth by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management, there are ample documentary evidence available in Ihis case lo show that the Petitioner, as delinquent employee, has committed a major misconduct of stealthfly removing the jewel loan card from the custody of the bank and made use (if die same for his purpose forging the signature of (lie Branch Manager and hud cheated an illiterate purty lor pledging his jewel for a loan nmount, There.is no reason for the Management to foist one such cast- on the Petitioner, on tmi'liivec ct the bank hy preparing docu- ments in support of the charge. It in the categorical evidence of the VfVVI MatiHjjer of the Bank branch that the signature contained in the fold loan curd produced by PW1 Mr. Palani to him when he met him at the Bank branch contains the forced signature of himself VAV\ IK has not at all put the signature and one "uch ;:uld loan card was not issued hy the bank for the Joan number mentioned therein. From h s oral evidence and other ci-nuect-ed records of the bank, it is evident that the gold loan card of the bank was stealthily removed from the custody of the bank and was fabricated for the use of a bogus transaction in the name of the delin- quent employee Mr. V. Meyyappan. The perusal of the said gold loan card with false particulars clearly shows that nobody else in the bank other than the concerned employee has done that mischief. As prcpondci mice of probability is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against ths delinquent employee is proved and strict adherence of Evidence Act is not necessary, non-ohtairiirig on expert evidence by handwriting expert in respect of the disputed jewel loan card is not necessary in tlrs case. From the available evidence, it is seen that in the domestic enquiry, the management was able to prove the misconduct of the Petitioner charge sheeted em- ployee as alleged in the charge sheet, The very fact thai the complainant Mr. Palani cam-..' and give as evidence as DWl in support'of the delinquent employee in the domestic enquiry shows that only to sateiuund the delinquent employei that the misconduct committed by him as a contra evidence to the > Management evidence which is not weighed much against thfc evidence nf MW1 and MW2 in the domestic enquiry. There in no *pecilic reason to disprove the evidence of MW1 and other documentary evidence''filed on the side of the Manas-mt;nt in the domestic, enquiry. This is not thr case of no evidence to prove the charges against the delinquen employee in the domestic, enquiry, So, the Enquiry. Officer had come to a correct condition that the charges have been proved against the charge sheeted employee, the Petitioner herc:n and had submitted his report, The proved charges are very serious in nature involving moral turpitude such as forgery, betrayal of illiterate customer causing damage of the image of the bank, which warrants deterrent punishment. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no handwriting expert eideiKe is available to establish tha: the Petitioner has committed foijjery. On the face of the evidence available in this case it is seen that the forgery have been committed hy the Petilionei charge sheeted employee, the opinion of handwriting expert in this case is not an absolute necessity. Thus, cons'derinn the gravity of the charges clso, and to safeguard the interest of the bank, the Disciplinary Authority had pnv-rd an appreciate final order by dismissine the Petitioner iYoni sevvice and the same has been confirmed by the Appel)qte Authority, Nothing is available in this case to, conclud; thut the action of the Management against the Petitioner fqr the proved misconduct as an unjustified one. Thus, the point is answfcred accordingly.

SO. 28(S0—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Ad. 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government ItKUiMr'nl Tribunal. Kolkata as shown in the Annexuro in the Indu^riril Dispute between Ihe employers in illation to the munagement of Cilv Bank. Calcutta and their workman, which was received hy the Cental Government on 20-9-2001.

[No, I--170J1/23/79-D. 1T,A/IR(B-T)1 A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 8. In tlv lesul'. an aw.ird Is piissed holding that that the action of the .Management Pandyan Grama Bank in termina-6049 ANNF.XURE

CENTRAL C.OVKRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 40 of 19 SO

PARTTKS :

Management of City Bank, Calcutta.

AND

Their workmen.

PRI.SHNT:

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding Ofli.< APPKARANCF: .

On behalf of Management: Mr. Atul Sharma, represen'a- tive of the Bank.

On behalf of Workmen : Mr. Subhas Ch, Mukherjce, Secretary of the Union.

STATl- ; - West Bengal INDUSTRY: Banking

AWARD

By Order No. L, 1,2011/23/70-1. II. A dated 3-6-1980 the . Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section lbf1)(d) of the Induslrial Disputes Act,, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"I. Whether the action of the management of City Bank N A. 43, Chowrinjzhee Road, Calcutta, in allotting staggering duties to individual clerks in the Bank on day to day basis is justified ? If not, to whnt relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?"

"2. Whether the action of the management of City Bank N A. 43, Chowiitighce Road, Calcutta in continuing lo kerp ihe posts of Tellers and Ledger Keepers on temporary ba.sis and assigning their duties by rotation amongst other member-staff indefinitely is justified 7 If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"'

2. Proceeding of the case was stayed in terms of the order of the Hon'Me Calcutta High. Court dated 044)2-1981. The case was fixed today and, notices were,.issued to the parties for thrir appearance to a.scerlairj thv present position of the matter hefnre the Hon'hlc Calcutta High Court., But, when the matter is called out today both the parties appear and Tile a ioint petition stating that the matter has been settled between the parlies and thev do not want to proceed further and nrayed for disposal of the matter accordingly.

3. Since the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not.want lo piocecd further in the matter, th*- reference is disposed of by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

H. P. SHARMA,. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001

SO 2861. 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 the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation lo ths Management of Malaprabha Grameen Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24 9-2001.

[No. L-12012/37/¹)8-IR(B-Tl]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNhXURE

CPNTRAL GOVP.RNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUMAABOUR COURT S'SHRAM SADAN", G, G. PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR,

BANGALORn-560 022

Dated : 6th September. 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'blc V N. Kulkarni. Presiding Officer.

C. R, No. S5/98

I PARTY

Sh. Niraujan Kudva, C/o The President, Malaprabha Grameen Bank Kmployce Union, 9 Corporation Building. Broadway, IIubli-5N0 020.

II PARTY

The Chairman, Malnprahha Gvameen Bank, Head Office, P. B. Road, Dhnrwad-JSO 001.

APPEARANCES :

I Party : M Rama Rap, President.

II Party : B. C. Prabhakar, Advocate.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred hy Clause (di of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ha^ referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/37/98-IR(B-I) dated 21 /23-09-199S for adjudication on the following ci:hedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whethei the action of the management of Malaprabha Grameen Bank, Dhurwad in dismissing the services of Sh. Niranjan Kudvfi K.. clerk is justicd ? If not, wh;it j'el:ef the (jonccrned workman is entitled to ?" 2. ( Parly was working with the II party, some irregularities w_Ye committed. Charge Sheet was, issued. Enquiry was ini- tiated and OJI the basis of (he Hnquiry Report I party work- man was dismissed and therefore Industrial Dispute is raised.

• 3. Paii'cs appeared and filed Claim and Counter Statements respectively.

4. The case of the I party in brief is as under.

(O J99K—l.ab 1C 2514^Suprcme Court—Division Bench non-supply ol documents fioni the very first stage was not correct, The leltei was taken under coercion,

Union. Hank of India vs, Vishwa Mohan.

— Held—It needs to be emphasized thai in the Banking businiess, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honestly needs to be preserved by every bank employee. It this is not observed the confidence of puhle/dcpositois would be impaired—Dismissal is justified.

(d) Judgement Today 199S (9) SC 37—Supreme C o u r t- Slate of Karnataka and others vs. H. Nagaraj.

6. Regarding the enquiry it is said thai the same is not correct. Full oppuilunily was not given to him. The punish- ment is illegal, [i is hirlher stated that the Clerk ol' the loans on deposit section and other superior officers were also res- ponsible arid tlit charge sheet issued to the I party alleging irregularities is not correct. The Bank has not initiated enquiry against the concerned officers of the bank, who were missing about a period of 5 months. The enquiry conducted is against the principles of natural justice and the same is mill and void, Therefore, the I parly for these reasons has prayed to pass an award in his favour,

7. The case of the fl party in brief is as¹ under,

— Held —The tribunal cannot reduce the penalty im- posed by the Disciplinary Authority as a matter of ioutine. The principle of proportionality can be invoked regarding punishment only in a cuse where the punishment was totally irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards,

8. The bank is establishment under Regional Rilral Bank Act, 1976 with 213 brandies. Bank has made considerable progress and indegatigatible efforts, good management wjih the co-operation o£ its employees. The bank is a sensitive institution and is a financial institution.

(e) AIR 1999 SC 625—Division Bench—Apparel Export

Promotion Council vs. A. K, Chopra.

Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is cither impermissible or such that it shoncks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment.

9. I parly while working at Hubli was issued with charge sheet fur fraud and serious inegularities. The I party was arranging loans against the deposit of customers without the knowledge of customers by forgeing customer's signature and fradulently ,he used amount for his personal use. lie used to remove loan documents, ledger folios and voucher bundles of the day by committing fraud and was defacing daybook entries, The misconduct is serious and charge sheet was issued wns given.

(f) AIR 1997 SC 2148—Narayana Dattatraya Ram- tcerthkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others. Dcliquent Officer Committed Misappropriation of public money. Removal from service is appropriate punishment.

ly) 1999 2 LLJ page No. 194—Management of i

Syrian Bank Ltd., vs, Industrial Tribunal, Madras 104 and another.

10. Enquiry was initiated and regarding enqtiiry it is said in para 6 thru full cppoiUuiity, all the documents were fur- nished to Ivm. Opportunity was given to cross-examine management witness and tnquiry it proper, legal and justified. The finding of the enquiry officer are based on both oral and documentary evidence tendered before him al the enquiry. The enquiry report is coneet. The punishment is proper. The management for these i efforts .ind for other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

Employee cannot claim right to commit fraud during course of employment. Employees issued maintain minimum standard of integrity. Ethical standards cannot be abounded and pica that justice should be tendered with mercy. Order of dismissal cannot he invalidated on ground of sympathy where such sympathy would he misplaced because of proved fi-av misconducts of fiaud committed by employee.

11. One Mr. K. M. Kulkaini, EC Member of MGBF \ represented (lie workman and he cioss-examined management witnesses. The allegations now made by the I party in respect of his defence rcpn scntative arc not correct. RegardinR enquiry entire oroceedinus arc explained in the counter. The manage- ment has prayed to reject the reference,

15. T have considered the entire enquiry proceedings. It is seen frcn the records that the enqury is conducted very systematically. The contention of the I party at this stage that the enquiry is not fair and propci and the report of the Enquiry Officer is not based on the evidence cannot be looked into except to know whether the report is perverse or not because this tribunal has passed orders holding that thf Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper,

12. It is seen from the records that the management in order to prove that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and pmn'r has examined MVVI who has uiven detailed evidence. The workman also got examined himself. It is seen from th - records that this tribunal by its order dated 7lh July, 1999 lias passed orders holding that the Domestic Enquiiy is accordance with law Thereafter the case was posted for arguments.

13. The represent alive of ihe I party has pressed to record evidence of I paity against victimisation, so permission wa granted and workman eot examined himself as WW1. He savs that Mnnawer took him to the cabin and he was victimised.

18, The High Court of Karnataka recently in a decision reported in ILR 2001 KAR 2650, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs H. B. Nadgcr and ILR 200J KAR 2914 Karnukika Stale koad Transport Corporation vs. A. Ramanna has held that once the delinquent official is guilty of the alleijed msconduct then there is no other go hut to lespect the punishment imposed by the management and in such cases showing irai-alled for sympathy does not arise and the Labour Court was wholly unjustified in invoking the provisions of Section 11 A.

19. Keeping all this in mind, and the principles held in the above referred decisions and the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference is Rejected

(Dictated lo the L.D.C. in camp, court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 6th September. 2001.)

V. N. KULKARN1, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 S.O. 2862.—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 [Labour Court, Banga- lore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United Western Bank Ltd., and their workman- which was received by the Central Government on 24-9-2001.

[No. L-12OI2|45|94-1R(B-I)1 A.TAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABAUR COURT

"SHRAM SADAN",

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD. YESTTWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 17th September, 2001 PRESENT :

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

PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT. BANGALORE

C.R. No. 60197

I PARTY :

Shri Vcnkatcsha Kani. Singathahalli Village, Dodda Madura Post, Kunieal Taluk. Yediyur Hobli-452142. Advocate—Shri S. Raju

II PARTY :

The General Manager, United Western Bank Ltd., 172 4, Ranwar Peth. Shivaji Circle, Satara-415001. Advocate—Shri R. Nagendra Naik.

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 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012145 [94-IR(B-I) dated 19th July. 1995 for adjudication on the following Schedule : —

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of the United Western Bank Ltd., Satara, is justified in dismissing Shri Venkatesha Kani a Sub-stall w.e.f. 11-1-1990 ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. First party was working with the Second Party. Charge Sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. He was dismissed from ser- vice and therefore Industrial dispute is raised.

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

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

5. It is the coso of the first party that he joined Ihc services of the second party as6052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASViNA 28, 1923 [FART II—SEC. Mn)] workman that ^the--findings¹' are perverse and the order of punishment is not correct. The first party workman- has nop convinced as to how the "finding is perverse There is no reason- to discard the'report' of the enquiry officer. It is in accordance with the evidence and the findings are correct.

Atlender on 15-7-1997. Subsequently he was conJirmed as Peon. He was discharging his services sincerely and honestly with good record. The Manager of the Bank developed ill will against him and was causing harass- ment. The charge sheet is not correct. He has not committed any misconduct. He was not unauthorifiedly absent and the charges are not true.

6. Regarding enquiry it is said that the en- quiry is not correct. There is victimisation. The first pariy for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 S.O. 2863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Laxmi Vilas Bank Limited and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 24-0-2001.

iNo. L-12012|67l98-IR(BI);

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officei6053 ANNEXURE-

properhitotic© wtmc 4o HubHtt^andjinalled'Jupartguio attend the Enqtmrfu* and 'lettdt givea^by the fc^arty-j was mot oDnSKteflWfc! >The Enqutryiff not fp*oper"Bfld it is pre-decided*."' and hurritirfyi-'- prepsiradtfiuiqQir.y" Report. The main content ion of the 1 party is tteitf the Enquiry was conducted, against the Principles ot Natural Justice' and' agartjst the Br-r5artitc Settlement. TheLaptiDfl"Xjf the ••Martrfgemenris'na correctr¹ BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL miBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT.rSHRAM SADAN", G G. FALYA, TUMKUR ROAD> YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-5 60022 Dated : 6th September, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble V. N. kulkartli, Presiding Office*. CRT No 89|98 1 PARTY II PARIY

Sh. G, K. Parshuram Rao, The Chairman,

Co The General Secretary, L axmi Vilas Bank

Limited, Dharwad District Bank Registered Ad- Employces ministration Office.

produced during the enquiry. The 1 party could not convience so as to say that the Enquiry is perveise. I party was working in the Bank and was expected to ischarge his duties honestly but he has tailed to do so.

18. I hajve carefully considered the evidence of the I party, he only says that within 2 or 3 clays enquiry was conducted and report was submitted¹. He only said that the Enquiry officer was biased and he has done everything. From the evidence of the I party, I am of the opinion thai he has failed to prove that Victimisation or Unfair Labour Practice.

19. Jn view of the recent decisions of the High Court of Karnataka ILR 2001 KAR 2650. North West Kairnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. H. B. Nadger and ILR 2001 KAR 2914, Karnataka Stated Road Transport Corporation vs. A. Ramanna has held that once the deliquent official is guilty of the alleged misconduct then there is no other go but to respect the punishment imposed, by the management and in such cases showing uncalled for sympathy docs not arise and the Labour Court was wholly un- justified in invoking the provisions of Section 11A.

20. In other words without any material to say that the Enquiry Report is perverse and the charges are not proved. Keeping in mind the Principles in the recent decisions and the decisions of the Karna- taka High Court, 1 am of the opinion that there is no material to invoke Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following Order.

ORDER

Reference is Rejected

(Dictated to the LDC in camp court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 6th September, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Utricer New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 SO 2864.—Tn 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, Bangalore as shown in Ihc Anncxnre in the Industrial Dispute' between the employers in relation to the management of " Ratnakar Bank Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 24-9-2001.

|No. L-12012/265/95-lR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN" G. G PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWAWTPUR, BANGO-

LORE-560 022

Dated, 6th September, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble V. N. Kulkarni, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 216/97

I Party

Sri Shivananda M. Gholi, C/o Dharwad District Bank Employees Association, 9, Corporation Building, Broadway, Hubli-580020.

II Party

The Assistant General Manager, The Ratnakar Bank Limited, 179/'E' Ward, Shri Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur.

APPEARANCES :

I Party : M. Rama Rao, General Secretary.

II Party : Harikrishna S. Holla, Advocate.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-l2012/265/95-IR(B-l) dated 11th March, 1997 for adjudication on the following sche- dule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ot the management of. Ratnakar Bank Limited in terminating the services of Sri Shivanada M. Gholi, sub-stall with effect from 01-04-1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. 1 party was working with the II party in the clear cut Sub-staff vacancy from 1988 August to March 1993 and he was paid wages at Rs. 20 per day. He was asked to work for 38 days in the year 1988 125 days in the year 1989, 282 days in the year 1990, 294 days in the year 1991, 208 days in the year 1992 and 45 days in the year 1993 as said in the para 2 of the Claim Statement.

3. Salary was paid by crediting the amount to the savings account and sometime in cash by taking signature on vouchers. He was denied Bonus and6055 other benefits. On 1-4-1993, the management with- out any reasons, notice or without giving compensa- tion, refused work to the f party workman. It is the further ease of the workman ihni he completed 240 days of work and refusal of work is not correct.

4. in fact the management has to issue appoint- ment order as per clause No. 495 of the Shastri Award and as per clause No. 493 of Shastri Award the Management has to maintain service records as stated in para 5 of the claim. The provisions of the Bi-partite Settlement are also stated in the para 6 of the Claim Statement. The action of the management is not cor- rect and therefore the I party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The ease of the TI party is brief is as follows.

6. The reference is not maintainable on facts. The I party was engaged by the Branch Manager at Hubli. No appointment order appointing first party was issued. There is no territorial jurisdiction.

7. I party was working in a clear cut Sub-staff vacancy upto 31-3-1993. As a matter of fact Bank Manager has no powers to appoint any person includ- ing daily wage staff, and that engagement itself is illegal. The termination order is correct. The manage- ment in order to meet extra load of work actuated on account of leave/absence of regular sub-staff en- gaged services of I party and I party was given work only when regular staff went on leave. Therefore, the engagement is actuated on the day when there is sufficient workload. I party has not worked for 282 days in the year 1990, 294 days in the year 1991. In fact he worked only for 156 days in 1990 and 197 days in 1991. Tt was necessary for the Branch Mana- ger to get approval everytime when wages are paid for the staff and in the instant case no such approval has been obtained. Allegations that the I party was terminated from the service with notice, and without giving compensation etc., are fake as the I party was given work only on account qf regular staff was on leave. Therefore, II party has no work so he was not engaged. I party has never worked continuously for more than 240 days in an year. The TI party is not a nationalised bank but a statutory bank and the TT party is not a party to Bi-partite Settlement as refer- red by the I party. The question of continuing the services does not arise at all. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that on behalf of management MW1, Officer Scale IT was examined. According to his evidence he says that the I party was not appointed in any existing vacancy and he was engaged at Hubli Branch against leave vacancy. The T party has wwked in Hubli for 38 days in 1988, 98 days in 1989, 175 days in 1990, 197 days in 1991, 205 days in 1992 and 30 days in 1993.

9. He has also stated that he has produced Salary Records and Registers, which are marked. He has further staled that the I party has not worked for 240 days. The 1 party being casual employee is not entitled for any bonus. The Board of Directors are appointing authorities for Sub-staff.

10. M Wl has stated that they have sent interview letter to I party on 16-2-1995 offering I party for permanent stall and Ex. IVt 3 is the list and his serial No. is at 3 which is in Murathi Language. . Before I proceed further, I may say that T know Marathi very well and I have read his name at Serial No. 3.

J ]. M Wl further says in his cross-examination that I party has not attended the interview. MW 1 further says that I party works in Chatge Transport,, Bijapur. MW 1 states in his cross-examination that identity Cards are given to permanent employees and Bi-partite Settlement is not applicable to them though they arc the member of the Indian Bank Association He clearly says that the I party worked from 27th August, 1988 onwards. He says that Identity Card is not correct and the Identity Card will be issued bv the General Manager, which is Ex. W-l. I have read his evidence very carefully, I have considered all the Documents.

12. It was argued by the management that the T party was not a permanent worker and he was tem- porary worker on daily wages. T have perused the registers produced by the management. I have seen Identity Card. This card is, issued by the officer of the Ratnakar Bank Limited, Branch Hubli, Dajiban Petfi, Hubli. The explanation of MW I in the above is not correct. If the Identity Card is to be given bv the General Manager, it is not explained by the man- agement as to why the officer who has signed Fx. W-] has issued card. The management has not exa- mined that officer in order to explain anything about Ex. W-l. We have the certificate of the management showing that the I party has worked as Sub-staff and he worked satisfactorily. The I party has filed Ex. W-8, a representation from the customers asking the autho- rities not to discontinue the I party workman. Tn my opinion this is an exgeration on behalf of the T party and unwarranted. Anyhow the management has issued Identity Card to the I party. Further, MW I in his cross-examination says that interview notice was issued to the T party. In other words it is clear that the T party was eligible for his absorption. The evi- dence of MW 1 is not very much clear to place rel;- ance. It was argued, by the representative of the f party that I party is called to interview, and much was said that the interview card has no correct address and the management has caused injustice to the I party, Tt was also argued thnt according to the same records I party was named Shivanand Goli and some- time as Shivanand Chadchana and this is clear from the extract of Subsidiary Book. This shows that there is truth in the submissions by Shri -Ramarao, T think this is seriously contested by'the I party to establish, that the notice of interview was not sent to I party on correct address. In Ex. M-3, the I party name is shown as Shivanand M. Goli and the address also is not proved by the management.

13. Fact remains that I party was called for inter- view. Tn other words, it is clear that the I party was entitled to be considered for regularisation and the order of termination is not correct. Taking all this into consideration and the available documents and the evidence of workman, I am of the opinion that the order of termination is not correct. According to the evidence of workman some others.varc continued6056 THE GAZETTE OF'INDIA'. OCTOBER 20,' 200 T/ AS VINA 28, 1923 -IPAKT U—SEC. 3(ii)] APPEARANCES :

and they were not terminated. This shows that the action Of the management is not correct.

On tuihulf of the Workman:—Shri S.. -Bose,

^Treasurer, R.C M.S. Union.

On behalf of the Employers.—Shri B. Joshi,

Advocate,

14.;}* have.giwu my best consideration*, the material •bufore ma and I am of the opinion that theiordcr of rtwmintttiDn is not correct -andraceocdirjgly ¥iI ^proceed to pass following, order :

STATE : Jharfchand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

ORDER

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1 Ith September, 7001

AWARD

Order of, iermination is set aside. The management i"4 directed to reinstate, the I .party to the post from which he was ,-terminated, and .in. the ^given. circums- tances back •"wages, are not- aUawedH 1 -party may be givea. continuity of service, if -evil other .conditions arc satisfied.

The Govcoiment of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the poweis conferred on them under Si-ctjon 10(1 )(d) of the I. D. Act, 1'947 has re- ferred the lollowing dispute to this Tribunal for ad- judication vids their Order No. L-24012|75|86-T>. 1V(B) dt. 30-12-86,

(Diotated-to. the-LDC in camp., court, transcribed and corrected and- signed by me on 6th September, 2001.)

SCHEDULE

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding Officer

"Whether the .demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor .fciingh .to give ..employment to Shri Jugcrnath Bouri dependant of Late Balia Bourin by the Management of Jeenagon Colliery is justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The- case of the concerned workman according

to hisAV.S, in brief is- as follows :—

New'Delhi, trie 2f"t"September, '2001

i lS.O>^2865.^~In pursuance of- (Section 17r of the drtdnatriaivBisputes • Act, y the Central'-GwMsmroentr irorebyi'pyWiehct. the • >aWard of thcCentrri i€kmrrninent H Industrial -Tribunal -v- (No. I!-) ;Dharibad tte shown iiviAnivxure -in- the .Jndus- rtriaf-fDtsputet'iiertS'cerv the \employers hv /relation to theirmii"aganet!t "f Mfts. •BCClvaud- their wtwkman, wht"toiw2ts.ir(sciMvcd by the Central- Government- on *1 •9-2001.

[No.L-240l2/75/&6-D.IYB/IR(C-T)j

S.'S. GUPTW, Under Secy.

ANMEXURE

BEFORE* THF. CENTRAL/ GOVERNMENT riNDUSTRlAL'l TRIBUNAL (NO; 2): AT '^"DHANBAD

It has freej*'submitted by the concerned workman in the-iWiSL thati-SmtirBalin Bourin was aipcrmanent KQiker -as Cat, i M.>zdoor jn Jeenagora' Colliery of J1CCL,having I.D^Card No. 86799.- Ho disclosed that ^Smt. iBalia Bourin,. andi her '-husband^ ShriiMathur •B.mri^had no issue (und adopted Sarma .Baurin- as daughter ftom, hex.infancy arid got her.ii married to SbiL XagarnaWa ,Bauri, Uie concerned rworkman. Smt. Balia -Baurin.died in -harness on .4-10-79 and for which .according to the ptovjsion of NCWA para 10.4.2 a dependant of a .workman-who died in har- ness will be'provided with suitabla.employinent. He further,submitted, that, the management.. also.'_.had adopted a policy of, employing "male" in place of eligible female workman whom the ...eligible .female will nominate and on that basis Smt. -Sarma. 3aurin the dependant adopted daughter of late Balia Bourin who was- entitled for emplo\ment nominated him for employment in. her place. But the management for the reasons best known to them did not .accept that nomination, and for which the industrial, dispute was taken up by the union of the workman namely R.C.M.S. but that also did- not yield any result. Tlitr&aftcr the union, raised am industrial i dispute before the ALC(C),..Dhanbad" who rtook up the matter, with the. majwement and held-conciliation proceeding but that* ended in laMurc resulting refe- rence to this Tribunal,

PRESENT :

3, The-management on the contrary • after filing Shri B. Biswas #rei"dirtg'Officer.

In the (matter of on industrial-tDiipwte rtmdeir Section

10 [1)(

Reference No. 38 of 1987

PARTIES :

Employer*, in -relation to the- management of JeenagnraXollL-ry'of-MPs. BCCL and their

•workman,

W.Si-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation < which ihe concerned workman|union asserted in the W.S. The management in the W.S. submitted'.that.-Smt: Balia Btiuria was- employed in Khav Jtxnnwtr-i -Collierv as Cat. I Mazdoor and she,died on 4-10-79.' Tt has boon further disclosed that- Smt, nBalta ?iBaurin and" her husband Mathura Bnuri who was employee of the management had no children of their own. The management categori- cally denied the fact that the said Balia Baurin and6057 her husbund adopted Smt. Sarma Baurin as their daughter and that Jagarnath Bauri was depcndan, on Smt. Balia Baurin. It has been submitted Uia neither Balia Baurin and Mathur Bauri had of any lime declared that they had any adopted daughter in the name of Sarmu Baurin. They also never availed of L.T.C. or L.L.T.C. benefit as per NCWA in fnvemr of Sanna Baurin, the alleged adopted daughter. The management also categorically denied the fact relating to I he claim of Smt. Sarma Baurin for giving employment of her husband Shrl Jagar- nalh Bauri, according to her nomination in view of the terms given in pnVa 10.4.2 of NCWA. II. The management submitted that as per para 10.4.2 of NCWA-11 the claim of Jugarnaih Bauri or Sanna Baurin doe., not stand because of the fact that the said provision dors not cover claim for employment of so-called adopted daughter. The provision exists only in the case of adopted son. Accordingly the- management submitted that the claim of the con- cerned workman^union for employment of Jagarnath Bauri finds no basis at all. But knowing fully well or the fact Uiis industiial dispute has been raised only to get benefit unlawfully. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing necessary award setting aside the claim of the concerned workman/ union.

The points for decision in this reference are : —

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to give employment to Shri Jagarnath Bauri dependant of Late Balia Bourin by the Management of Jeena- gora Colliery is justified ? Tf so, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

5, The concerned worKman|union in order to substantiate the claim examined one witness while the management in order to rebut the claim of the concerned workmanjunion examined one witness. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the evidence on record I find no dispute to hold that Smt. Baha Baurin was an employee under the management, Mathur Bauri, husband of said Balia Baurin was also an employee of the mana- gement. Tt is also clear from the evidence on record and also from the facts and circumstances of the case Smt. Balia Baurin and her husband Mathur Bauri had no issue of their own. It is the conten- tion of the concerned workman that during life time Smt. Balia Baurin ind Mathur Bauri adopted Sarma Baurin as their daughter and thereafter said Sarma Baurin was married to Shri Jagarnath Bauri. Tt is also admitted fact that Balia Baurin died in harness. After deaih of Bnlia Baurin Jagarnath Bauri relying on para 10.4.2 of NCWA-JI submitted his prayer for getting his employment under the management. The main contention of the manage- ment is that a son-in-law is not entitled to get any such benefit according to para 10.4.2 of NCWA-TI. Apart frcm thi< fret the management also denied the clnim of the concerned workmanlunion that Sarma B-uiiin was adopted by Smt. Balia Baurin and Mathur Bauri during their life time. Therefore, in the instant case two questions have been cropped up. First question is whether Sharma Baurin was adopted demphter of Smt, Baha Baurin and her husband and the second question is of so, whether 3182 GI|2001—18.

Jagarnath Baurin husband of Sarma Baurin is eligi- ble to claim employment as per para 10.4.2 of NCWA-II after death of Smt. Baha Baurin. The concerned workman|union cannot avoid responsibility to establish the claim that Sarma Baurin was the adopted daughter of Smt. Balia Baurin and her hus- band. Dining evidence the concerned workman| union has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that Sarma Baurin was adopted by Smt. Baurin and her husband. Jt is the contention of the concerned workman;union Lhat Sarma Baurin has received all benefits from the management after the death of Baha Baurin being her legal heir. I do not want to raise any dispute to this effect. If the document E>t. M-5 is taken into consideration I think it will expose everything. It is seen that Sarma Baurin after the death of Balia Baurin submitted a petition before Ihe management to draw gratuity as a legal heir of late Balia Baurin. The statement given by Sarma Baurin in Ihe said petition shows clearly that she :ubmitted her claim being nciece of Balia Baurin rnd not us her adopied daughter. It is the contention of the concerned workmanjunion that Sarma Baurin was adopted by Smt, Balia Baurin during her infancy and brought up by them. If it was so, there was no reason to refrain Sarma Baurin to declare herself as adopted daughter when she submitted her petition in the matter of claiming gra- tuity of Smt. Balia Baurin before the management. This very petition submitted by Sarma Baurin shows clearly her relationship wilh Btijia Baurin and Mathur Bauri. Therefore, until and unless any sullicicnt evidence is produced that she was adopted daughter of Sml, Balia Baurin and her husband T find it diffi- cult to accept such contention. Apart from this fact let up consider if according to para 10.4.2 of NCWA-IT husband of Sarma Baurin is entitled to t'et any employment after the death of Smt. Balia Baurin. Para 10.4.2 clause (i) and (ii) speak as follows :—

"10.4.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service, (i) The dependant for this purpose must be the wife|husband as the case may be, un- married daughter, wn and legally adopted son. If no such direct depen- dant is available for employment younger brother, widowed daughter|widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of fhc deceased maybe con- sidered to be dependant of the deceased.

(ii) The dependant to be considered for emp- loyment should be physically fit and suit- able for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit shall not apply in ihe case of the spouse." Therefore, the provision as laid down in para 10.4.2 does not provide anv room for getting any employ- ment of Jagnrnath Bauri husband of Sarma Baurm under the management. Onus absolutely lies on the concerned workman/union to establish that the pro- vision as lai clown in para 10,4.2 also can be ap- plied in this case. Learner! Advocate for the concerned workman [union in course of hearing has failed to satisfy this aspect lamentably. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and rir-6058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 |PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cunistances I hold that ihe claim of the concerned woikman|union for getting employment finds no basis at all. I dn not find :iny unfairness or illegal- lity in the mutter of lcJLcting the claim of the con- cerned workman'union. In lie result, the following Award is rendered : —

"The demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to pive employment to Shri Jagar- nath Bonri dependant of Late Balia Bourin by the Management of Jcenagora Colliery is not justified. Consequently, the concern- ed workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001 8:0. 2866.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the In dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal (No. II), Dhan- bad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-9-2001

(No. L-20012/l91/94-IR(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 tka matter of an industrial Dispute under Section 10.(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 64 of 1995

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : None.

\ TE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th September, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/191/94-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 4th May, 1995 :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra OCP of M/s. BCCL in not regu- larising Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Sho- vel Operator in Excavation Tech. 'A' Grade and not paying different of wages of Tech. 'A' Grade is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ?"

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

The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he has been working as Shovel Operator since the date of his appointment at Bhowra IV B O.C.P. Ht¹ submitted that there is provision for making payment of Excavation Grade-A wages as per the classifica- tion of the workmen and their works. In spite of that existing provision it has been alleged by the concerned workman that he has been paid Ex. Grade-B since February, 1982. Accordingly he filed a petition before the management on 21-2-90 Bhowra North O.C.P. regarding his payment of his wages of Ex. Grade-A The management did not pay any heed to his appeal. The concerned workman further submitted that in the year 1987 he passed D.P.C. and in spite of his suc- cess in the D.P.C. examination the management did not consider his case. Accordingly the concerned workman has raised an industrial dispute which re- sulted reference to this Tribunal. Accordingly thr concerned workman has prayed for passing necessary Award holding that the action of the management in not regularising him in Excavation Technical Grade- A and not paying difference of wages in Technical Gr.- A was illegal and unjustified. He also prayed for regu- larisation of his service in Excavation Grade-A and payment of difference of wages of Technical Grade-A from the date of his appointment.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The management submitted that the condi- tions of service of a workman are governed by the Certified Standing Order as well as by NCWA and JBCCT circular. There is no rule relating to regula- risation of a workman where there exists cadre scheme and the workman can be promoted from Jower post or status to higher post or status as per cadre scheme subject to availability of vacancy. The management submitted that the Shovel Operators have been, placed in Grades III, TT and I as per the cadre scheme. A skilled workman with more than three years cxperi-6059 difference of wages of Tech. A 'Grade is jus- tified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ?"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS ence operating electric or dicsel shovels is placed in Gr. 111. He is placed in Group D and is entrusted with the duties of operating shovel with'• bucket capacity of less than 2 C.M.T, He should possess knowledge of operation and maintenance of the shovel both elec- trical and mechanical and should be capable of under- taking minor running, repairs. Thus a skilled workman after gaining experience in three years in operating shovels and learning all such jobs, his suitability is judged by the D.P.C. and isr placed in Grade-D as Shovel Operator Gradc-III. The management further pubrnjtted that the shovel operator Gradc-III is pro- moted to Grade-II and he is placed in Group B. The shqvel operator is given two jumps from Group D to Group B as shovel operator are not placed in Group-C. A skilled workman with more than four years of ex- perience in the operating of Electric/Diesel Shovel are promoted to Shovel Operator Grade-II from Sho- vel Operator Grade-IH. Shovel Operator in Gradc-TI is promoted to the post of Shovel Operator in Grade-I subject to the condition that he is capable of operat- ing shovels of bucket capacities in between 3.5 and 8 C.M.T. and must possess suffi- cient knowledge and skill in manouvcring the shovel giving maximum work load and he should know the intricate of the opeartion of the shovel and its running repairs. The management submitted that the concerned workman was working as Shovel Operator Grade-B and in that connection he was entrusted with the duties of operating the Shovels of bucket capacities in between 2 to 3.5 CMT and he was also given opportunity to learn the job of operating shovel of bucket capacities between 3.5 to 8 C.M.T, so that at the time of trade test he can pass the examination and the DPC may clear for his promotion to Gradc-I in Group A. The management also submitted that at Opencast project at Bhowra there exist only one shovel of the capacity above 3.5 C.M.T. and less than 8 C.M.T. Therefore only three regular Grade-I shovel operators are required and for work during leave and sick vacancy one more Gradc-I operator may be placed. In that Opencast project as many as seven gradc-1 shovel operator arc available because of anticipated promotion and withdrawal of one shovel to another place. Thus the management is unable to provide jobs to all Grade-I shovel operators due to want of high capacity Shovels and they are deployed in shovels of lower capacity where Grade-TI shovel operators can be deployed. Tn the face of such situation the demand of the concerned workman and others for their promotion to Grade-I and placement of group A scale is without any justification. The man- agement further submitted that in absence of vacan- cies the concerned workman cannot be promoted to the post of Grade-I shovel operator in Group-A and for which there was no scope to pay higher wages for taking work of Grade-II operator in Group-B. Accordingly the management submitted that the claim of the concerned workman could not be considered. In the result, the management submitted prayer for passing Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

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

5. Considering the W.S. submittc by both sides it is clear that tne concerned workman was a Shovel Operator Grade-II in Group-B. It is the contention of the concerned workman that inspite of his having sufficient experienc; and also inspite of passing the D.P.C. the management did not consider necessary to promote him to Grade-1 in Group-A. It is the spe- cific allegation that inspite of making representation to this effect the management did not pay any heed to this aspect. On the contrary it is the contentjon of the management-that in the O.CXP. at Bhowra there is only post of Grade-A Shovel Operator but in spite of existence of one post they have recruited as irfBtny as 7 Grade-I operators. The management further sub- mitted that scope of promotion to Grade-I depends on the number of vacancies exist. Disclosing this fact the management admitted that there was no vacancy in G^ade-A and there was no scope on their part to give any promotion to the concerned workman in Grade-I in GrouprA. It is seen from the record that the concerned workman was given sufficient oppor- tunities to establish his own claim but in spite of giving sufficient opportunities the concerned workman did not consider necessary to adduce evidence with a view to justify his claim. Even he did not consider necessary to appear before the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the reference in ques- tion I find no dispute to hold that the concerned- work- man is working as Shovel Operator Gradc-II. His claim is for getting promotion as Shovel Operator Group-I in Group-A and in support of his claim he submitted in his W.S. that not only'he¹ acquired suffi- cient experience but also passed the DJP.C. exami- nation. During hearing the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit the certificate relat- ing to his passing D:P.C. examination. It is a fact that the concerned workman by virtue of his expe- rience is entitled to get promotion but simultaneously the claim of the management cannot be wiped out. It is the speeilic contention of the management that scope of promotion depends on the existing vacancy. It has been disclosed that at O.C.P. there is only one post of Shovel Operator Grade-I in Group-A. Instead of one post they have provided 7 shovel operator Gradc-I in 'Group-A. As thiMe is no va- cancy they did not find any scope to give any promotion to the concerned workman as Shovel Operator in Grade-I and for which they are unable to pay wages at enhanced rate as per the pay scale of Gradc-1 though the concerned workman is working in Grade-Tl. There was scope on the part of the concerned workman to rcbute the claim of the management but the concerned workman has failed to avail of said opportunity inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. As such at this stage 1 find it dillicult to ignore the claim of the manage- ment relating to filling up of vacancies and giving promotion to the concerned workman. In the circums- tances the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief according to his prayer. In the .result, the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of Bhowra OCP of M/s. BCCL in not regularising Shri "Whether the action of the management of Bhowra OCP of M/s. BCCL in not regularising Slid Mahendra Pratap Singh Shovel Operator in Excavation Tech. A Grade and not paying6060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PART If—SEC. 3(ii)] Mahendra Pratap Singh, Shovel Operator in Excavation Tech. LA? Grade and not paying difference of wages of Tech. 'A' Grade is justified. Consequently, the con- cerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001 S.O. 2867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- . dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. II), Dhanbad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 21-9-2001.

[No. L-20012/214/92-IR(C-I)l

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Ollicer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the T.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 115 of 1993

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery of M / s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : None.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th September, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(214)/92-l.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 21/26-7-1993 :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra (N) Colliery under Bhowra Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. in not providing employ- ment to Shri A. Bhandary a non-working miner sirdar is justified ? Tf not, to what relief the workman is entitled'?" 2. The case of the concerned workman as per his W.S. in brief is as follows :—

The concerned workman in the W.S. submitted that prior to the nationalisation of the collieiies Miner Sirdari Commission system prevailed in the coal field. Under the system the Miner Sirdars who recruited miners were paid commission and quarter bonus on the basis of the number of tubs raised by them. After nationalisation of the colliery the management in dis- cussion with the representative of the trade union in the Central Consultative Committee meeting held on 20-12-1975 took a policy decision for absolition of the payment of Sirdari Commission to the non- working mining sirdars after providing them with suit- able employment because as per decision of the Hon'blc Supreme Court Miner Sirdars have been held to be the workmen under the I.D. Act, The workman side further submitted that under this policy decision many non-working Miner Sirdar who were found to have been receiving commission between 1973 to 3976 were taken into employment. It has been alleg- ed that in spite of the requisite qualification the man- agement did not consider necessary to provide employ- ment to the concerned workman. Even the manage- ment refused to pay any commission for non-working Mining Sirdar. Accordingly the concerned workman/ union raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C) which resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudi cation.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-curn-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman/union as- serted in the W.S. It has been submitted by the man- agement that vide letter dated 10/11-3-91, Dy. C.M.E., Bhowra informed the ALC(C) to the effect that the management had absolished the system of payment of commission to non-working Miner Sirdar and also such cases were settled long back in the year .1975-76 on merit. The management further submitted that the concerned workman A. Bhandari also raised the same dispute which ended in failure. Accordingly the management further submitted that the concerned workman h;is made a fabricated claim to get his relief illegally. The management submitted that as payment of such commission to non-working Miner/Sirdar has already been abolished the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly the manage- ment have prayed for passing necessary Award reject- ing the prayer of the concerned workman/union.

4. The points for decision in this reference are : — consider no merit in the prayer of the concerned workman. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—

"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery under Bhowra Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. in not providing employ- ment to Shri A. Bhandari a non-workim; miner sirdar is justihed 7 If not, Lo wiiat relief the workman is entitled '?"

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

"The action of the management of Bhowra (S) Colliery under Bhowra Area of M/s. B.C.C.L, in not providing employment to Shri A. Bhandari a non-working miner sir- dar is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001

S.O. 2868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No. II) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial! Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M|s. BCCL and their woikman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-9-2001.

LNo. L-20012/4l4/95-IR(C-I)J S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer,

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 1 0 ( l ) f d) of the I.D. Act.. 1947.

Reference No. 6 of 1997

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M|s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Shri B. N. Singh, General Secretory, National Coal Workcis Congress.

On behalf of ths employer-; : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal. 5, It is the specific claim of the concerned work- man/union that prior to nationalisation of the colliery Mincr/Sirdari commission system was prevalent in the coal industry. After nationalisation of the colliery the same practice prevailed. However, the concerned work- man submitted that over this issue a Central Consul- tative Committee meeting was held on 20-12-75 in presence of the representative of different trade unions and in the said meeting a policy decision was taken for abolition of the Sirdari Commission to the non- working Miner Sirdar after providing them with suit- able employment. It is the specific allegation of the concerned workman/union that the concerned work- man was a MinerjSirdar prior lo nationalisation of the colliery and he used to receive commission as per system. After nationalisation of the collieries and also after taking decision by the Consultative Committee of the trade unions the management did not provide any job to the concerned workman and for which he is very much entitled to get commission as providing employment was a pre-condition of abolition of that commission as per decision taken by the said com- mittee. The management on the contrary denying the claim of the concerned \\orkman submitted that the payment of commission to non-working miner sirdar had already been abolished in view of the deci- sion taken by the Central Consultative Committee. As a result of which the concerned workman is not entitled to get any commission which he has claimed. Considering the submission of the union and also of the management it is clear that as per decision taken by the Central Consultative Committee payment of commission to the non-working miner sirdar has al- ready been abolished. Naturally any such miner sirdar is debarred from claiming any commission but the con- cerned workman submitted that such abolition of com- mission was conditional order and there was a pre- condition that before stopping payment of any such commission employment should be given to the Miner Sirdar. In course of hearing the concerned workman has failed to produce any such document to show thul abolition of payment of commission was a conditional order. No evidence is also forthcoming before ihc- TribunaJ to the effect chat prior to taking of the said decision, by the Consultative Committee the concern- jed workman used to receive commission regularly from the management. It is seen that tho concerned workman in spite of getting ample opportunity cliff not consider necessary to establish his own claim. It is the claim of the management that no such condi- tion was given as per decision of the Central Consul- tative Committee. Therefore, the .claim made by tin- concerned workman is vague and vaxious and lot which he is not entitled to get any relief. I liave con- sidered, all the papers available on record and con- sidering the record I do not find any material evidence relying on which the claim of the concerned work- man could be substantiated. In the circumstances, I

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1 Hh September, 20016062 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD

Kamin for the period from January, 1978 to 25-1-1992 during whiph she was not allowed to worlc- as an investigation was pending against her, is legal anfi justified. If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?'

DECISIONS WITH REASONS The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the T.D. Act, 1947 has inferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012|4H|95-I.R. (CM), dated, the 2nd January, 1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand by the Union for pay- ment of wages by the management to Smt. Dulia Kainin lor the period from January, 1978 to 25-1-1992 during which she was not allowed to work as on investigation was pending against her is legal and justi- fied. If so, to what relief is the workman entitled ?nl

2. The ease of the concerned workman as per his

W.S. in brief is as follows :—

It has been submitted by the concerned workman that he was an employee under the management and worked till the fag end of 1977. Thereafter the management without assigning any reason stopped¹ her from work and for which she referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for re-concilia- tion. The Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad after hearing both sidcis recommended to the management for her re-employment with al! back wages since 1977. ]t has been alleged by the concerned workman that inspite of''her reinstatement by the management as per the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad the management refused to pay her any batfk wages since January, 1978 to 25-1J92. Accord- ingly the concerned workman has raised an industrial dispute befoi-e the ALC(C)', Dhatibad which resulted reference to this reference. The concerned workman in her written statement has prayed for passing an Award directing the management to pay all her back wages with effect from January, 1978 till 25-1-92.

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001 S.O. 2869,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), (he Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribtmal-cum-LabOur Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employer, in relation to the management of Sub Divisional Officer, Tele- graphs and their workman, which was recehed by the Central Government on 25-9-2001.

[No. L-40012|129i95^IR(DU)] KULDJP RAT VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1 BtJNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

III MAIN, m CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated; 17th September, 2001

PRESENT :

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

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, Bangalore.

C.R. NO. 175|97

I PARTY

Shri Krishna D. Naik, S|o Shri Daimu K. Naik, Doddagudda, Manki Post, Honnavan Taluk, KarWar Dist-581 348 (Advocate-P. Gopala Krishna).

II PARTY

5. Jt is contended by the first party that he joined the services of the Second Party w.e.f. 1-3-1982 and was drawing salary of Rs, 1400 per month. He worked honestly and faithfully. He could not attend the office on 1-2-1993 on account n! buck pain and he was advised bed rest. Pie had sent leave application along with medical certificate. But the management did not consider his application and his services weic terminated. The termination order is bad. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

7. The management has given the paraiwise reply in detail. The first party was absent from 1-2-1993. He was not interested to do the duty. He remained unauthorisedly absent without intimating the Second Party. Now the first party hap filed¹ This case but there is no merit. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

8. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the management MW1 is examined and documents are marked. According to the evidence of MW1 the first party was working as casual labour mazdoor on Muster Roll basis, The first paity was absent un- authorisedly for 1-112 years. Notice was sent to him to report for duty but he did not report for duty. He is cross examined but nothing is mad-; out from his cross examination.

New Delhi the 27th September, 2001 S.O. 2870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabnl- pur as shown in the Anncxure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Deptt of Telecom, and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 27-9-2001.

[No. L-40012|206[95-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOTIR COURT, JABALPUR

CASE NO. CGIT-LC|]92|97 PRESIDING OFFICER, SHRI K. M. RAI Shri Gopal Prasad Tiwari, R[O 1196 Vansagar, North T. T. Nagar, Bhopal.

• • Applicant.

Versus

The General Manager, Telecommunication Dcptt.- Bhoppal • . Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of September, 2001 1. The Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-40012|206[95-IRDU dated 11-7-97 has referred the following dis- pute for adjudication by this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of Telecommunication, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Gopal Prasad Tiwari w.c.f. 12-5-95 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. The case for the workman is that he was appointed as worker on daily wage basis by Lhe management w.e.f. 11-11-91. He conti- Luously worked till 12-5-95. Thereafter he was removed from service by the management without assigning any reason. Neither he was served with one month's statutory notice prior to termination of his service nor he was paid any retrenchment compensation according to the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the LD. Act, 1947. No domestic enquiry for any misconduct was conducted against him by the management. The workers who have worked less than 240 days in a calendar year have been retained in service by the management. The workman is without employment since the date of his termination. The order of termination passed by the management is illegal and deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with all back wf>?es and other conseuucntial benefits.

3. The case for the management is that the workman was never employed by the management. He was not engaged for any continuous work. He was engaged as a casual worker only for short duration from time to time as and when required for casual nature of work. The workman is guilty of manipulation and in unauthorised possession of Government documents which is not sup- posed to be in his possession. On verification, it was found that the vouchers relating to pay- ment made to another casual worker from Bhopal have also been included by the work- man lo show the continuity of work in the department. The workman altered the name of Ram gopal into Gopal Tiwari in conveyance of Ramgopal in his voucher to claim the con- tinuity of work. In this way the workman has tempered with the official records which amounts to serious misconduct. He never continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar vcar as claimed by him. The management has not committed any error in terminating the services of the workman The management was not required to hold nnv DE against the workman. The provisions of Sec. 2^F of the I.D. Act have not been violated bv the management in nnv manner. Tbr¹ workman is not eniitled to reinstatement with brick WHET'S as claimed by him.

A. Th'" tnomppinpnt further alleges that the? workman had filed the pciition before the6065 was conducted by the management. It was the duty of the management to hold enquiry in the presence of the workmon to find out as to whether the present workman was the proper person or not. if any enquiry was conducted in the absece of the workman then it will not be just and proper. It is therefore held that no proper enquiry was conducted by the manage- ment as per order of the CAT, Jabalpur dated 1-J1-96 to 15-7-98 to find out the identity of the workman. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 2.—The management has failed to hold enquiry in accordance with the order of the CAT, Jabalpur dated 1-11-96 and 15-7-98, Without holding the proper enquiry, it cannot be held that the workman is not the proper person who was employed by the management. In such a circumstance, the order of dismissal passed by the management against the workman is absolutely unjust and no¹ proper which deserves to be quashed.

8. The learned counsel for the workman submitted during the course of his argument that the workman docs not press his claim for back wages. He prayed that the workman be reinstated without back wages. In view of this submission, it appears to be just and proper that ihe workman be reinstated without back wu^es. It is therefore held that th? workman is entitled to reinstatement without back wages. Tliis issue is answered accordingly.

CAT. Jabalpur for granting temporary status and regulansation in the department of tele- communication. The CAT, Jabalpur passed his order directing the General Manager, Telecommunication, Distt. Bhopal to hold an enquiry into the matter by a Senior Officer wiiere Uie workman is the same person and subsequently to find out as to how he had managed to obtain the copy of the order book and who were the persons who were respon- sible to give him the copy. In compliance of this order, an enquiry was conducted by the C.A.O. of the GM, Telecommunication Bhopal. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry held that the workman along with other workers in receiving his wages for the period during which he was engaged, fraudu- lently obtained payment of wages of Sht\ Ram- gopal. In this way he tampered with the pay- ment voucher of the wages of Shri Ramgopal. Dining the enquiry, it was found that the workman Gopal Tiwari and Ramgopal were different persons engaged as casurl workers on different occasions. In view of this enquiry, the workman was not found to be appointed as a regular worker in the department. The workman subsequently filed an o.her petition also before ihc CAT, Jabalpur. The : Aid tribu- nal passed the final order on 15-7-915 irntiton enquiry it is found that the applicant is the same person, then the Department is free to consider his case. In enquiry, it was not found that the workman was same person and therefore he was not found fit for regularisition in the de- partment. In view of all these facts the work- man is not entitled to any relief as cHmrd by him.

5. The following issues ari(,e for decision

in this case :—

9. Issue No, 3 :— On the reasons slated above, it is held that the order of dismissal passed by the rmnrtgement against the work- mar is illegal and it is therefore quashed. The workman be reinstated without back wages within a period of 3 months from the. date of aw.nl, Ris absenee from duty shall be treated as continuous service only for pensionary benefit. Parties shall bear their own costs.

10. CODV of the award be sent to the 1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management as per the ord.T o> the CAT> Jnlnipur is \m>; anJ proper ?

3182 0^2001—19.

New Delhi, the 27th September. 2001

S.O. 2871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jodhpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Deoft. of Telecom and their work- man, which was received by the CenTal Government on 27-9-2001.

[No. L-40O12|50|99-I.R.(DU)] KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer ;r./6068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2001/ASVINA 28, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th September, 2001

S.O. 2872.—In pursuarice pf Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), th© Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shewn in Hie Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management 'of Ordnance Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-9-2001,

[No. L-14011/l/94-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/25/96

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai. Mohd. Akhtar, through General Secretary, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria Workers' Union, 4817, Type-I, Khamaria, Jabalpur.

. . Non-applicant.

Versus

The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur.

. . , Non-applicani.

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of September, 2001

1. The Govvenment of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-14011/1/94/IRDU dated 16-1-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tjrbunal:—

"Whether the attion of the management nt Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur in imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment and promotion with immediate eTcct vide order dated 22-1-92 on Mohd. Akbar, Motor driver Grade I is justified or not ? If not, to what relief he is entitled for?"

2. The case for the workman is that he has served in the Ordnance-Factory, Khamaria for about 31 years. He had an unblemished service record. He wias Joint Secretary of the Trade Union at the relevant time. Being an office bearer of the Trade Union, he is bound to put up the gievances of the workman before the management for redress. By this Union activity, the management was annoyed with him. The manpgement was looking for an opportunity to victimise him (or no reasons. During the tenure of Shri Natarajan us General Manager, the Trade Union have raised seve- ral demands before him and therefore he was much' annoyed with the workman. On 4-3-91, he was woifc- ing as ambulance driver. On that day, he was on duty at East Land Hospital. On that very day, he was given vehicle No. MIJ-3118 for driving. After getting the vehicle be was deputed to factory dispensary by ouw

against this order. The appellate authoriy also dis- missed his appeal vide oiaat uated 25-1.-W3. me im- position of penalty or wnhr.okung two increments of the workman is absolutely just anu proper and n does not requite any interference. The workman is not en- titled to any relief as claimed by him.

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

tne DMO at about 8.40 A.M. The movement of the vehicle was recorded in the lug book, biimg mu'iniain- cd by the drivers and countersigned by his controlling .officer. On 9-3-91, the Works Manager Shri V;r;ndra Singh issued a false memo alleging therein that on 4-3-91 at about 9.30 A.M. he had abused his foreman Shri K. K. Sikdu with filthy language at the time all other drivers were protesting in front of allocation room. He was asked to submit his reply to the memo. He denied all the allegations of the management in the reply. On his demand the relevant documents were not supplied to him.

1. Whether the DE conducted against thef workman by the management is just and proper 7

3. The wokman further alleges that the following

charges were framed against him—

1. Missing from place of duty..

2. Whether the imposirion of punishment with- holding two increments without* cumulative effect vide order dated 22-7-92 is just and proper ?

2. Unauthorised entry in MT Section.

3. Relief and costs?

3. Unauthorised assembly in from of MT allo-

cation room.

6. Issue No. 1.—It has been admitted by the man- agement witness Shri S. P. Lai that he had not con- ducted the DE against the workman. He has also ad- mitted that no DE was conducted against the work- man. It appears that no DE was conducted against the workman and therefore the validity of DE does not require to be considered at all. This issue is answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the workman submitted that the lesser penalty shall meet the ends of justice in the present case as the wbrkman has served the man- agement for a considerable period of time and he was an active member of the trade Union. Taking this fact into consideration, the order of punishment be set aside and the lesser punishment, be imposed on the workman. In view of this submission I feel that the withholding of one increment without cumulative effect shall meet the ends of justice. This issue is ans- wered accordingly.

4. Use of abusive language.—After receiving the memo charges he submitted an application on 27-2-91 denying the charges levelled against him. He also demanded the relevant documents relied on by the management but the documents were not supplied to him. He was not given opportunity to inspect the rele- vant documents to defend his case properly. The man- agement had refused to conduct enquiry under rule-] 6. Ultimately the management imposed the penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect on the workman vide order dated 22-7-92. He preferr- ed an appeal against this order. The appellate autho- rity did not consider his plea and passed final order. The action of the management in imposing the punishment is without any base and against the princi- ples of natural justice. This order therefore deserves to be quashed. Thens is nothing on the record to impose the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. This order of the management is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

8. Issue No. 3.—In view of my findings given on Issue No. 2, it is held that the order of punishment is disproportionate in the circumstances of ihe case. The order of the management withholding two increments of the workman without cumulative effect w.e.f. 22-11-92 is set aside. Tt is ordered that the manage- ment shall withhold only one increment of the work- man without cumulative effect in the relevant year.

9. Copy of the award be sent to ihe Ministry of'

Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer 5. The case for the management is that on 4-3-91, the workman was deputed on his duty at East Land Hospital, Khamaria from 7-30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. On that day, without obtaining the permission from the competent authority, the workman entered in the M.T. section inside the factory at about 8.05 A.M. At that time he remained without his ambulance motor car in- side the factory. Lator on the same day, he entered in the factory with his ambulance motor car at about 8.40 A.M. In this way for about 35 minutes he remained absent from his duty without any permission) m 4-3-91. On that day at 8.05 A.M. he joined the other workers who hadl assembled unauthorisedly in the premises of M.T. section and hurled abusive lan- guage to the foreman Shri R. K. Sikclnr. This act of the workman amounts to serious m isconfluct. The chargesheet was served on the workman who sub- mitted his reply denying the entire chorees. His de- fence was that he had entered the factory premises to fill diesvM in his vehicle wtrch was not found satis- factory. The Disciplinary Authority after carefully exarrrninr: flip '-cplv of the workman imposed the ocnalty of withholding twn in^r-ments without cumu- lative effect w.c.f. 22-7-92. TTvs n^n'ty amounts to minor penalty. The workman preferred an appeal6J)7p THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; OCTOBER 20. 2001/ASVlNA 28, 1923 [PART H—SE Nqw Ipejhi, the 27thi September, 2001 S.O. 2873.—la pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)> the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the An^exurc in the Industrial Dispute, between tha employers in relation to the management of Grey Iron Foundary and their workman, which w&s received by the Central Gov- ernment on 27-9-2001.

[No. L-14012/10/97-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Casa No. CGIT/LC/R/320/97

Presiding Officer: Shri K. M. Rai.

Shri Mahesh Kumar, Ex-Labour, Grey lion Foundary, Jabalpur.

. . .Applicant.

Versus

Management of Grey Iron Foundary, Jabalpur.

.. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed ons this 17th day of September, 2001 1. The Government of fndin, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-14012/lO/97-lR(DU) dated 15-12-97 has referred the following dispute for ad- judication by this tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Grey Ifon Foupdary, Jabalpuf, MP in terminating the services of Shri Mahesh Kumar w.e.f. 23-5-94 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that he wa, em- ployed in the Grey Iron Foundary at Jabalpur. Ii the month of September/October, 1993, ho fell ill and therefore he could not attend his duty for a period of 2 months. He had undergone treaiment from a Private Physician at Ranjhi, Jabalpur. He had also taken treatment from Vehicle Factory Hospital, Jabalpur. He had intimated about his illness to ths management. The management issued a chargeshor* dated 26-7-93 regarding his absence from duty without any intima- tion. He had submitted h\v reply dated 6-9-93, He had clearly stated in his reply that he was absent from duty on account of illness. The management accepted his reply as admission to the charges and on this basis, the punishment ^f psmoval from service was imposed on him. He preferred an appeal ngainst the order of dismissal to the competent nuthority His appeal was rejected on 4-7-95. The order of dismissal passed by the management is absolutely illegal which deserves to-b" quanhed. No proper PR was conducted against him. H" w!a* not given ntmpb opportunity to defend his case properly. The management passed th^ order without considering his genuine repiy. He is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits.

3. The case for the management is that the work- man was irregular in attendance. On iwo occasions for his absence from duty without intimation he war- punished and hi3 on© increment was wiih-held. Hei remained absent from duty without intimation with effect from 3-4-93. He was called upon by the man- agement to report for duty vide letter dated 12-7-93 and 5-7-93 but the workman did nut respond to the letter. The workman neither applied for leave on medical grounds nor he intimaied Uic management regarding his illness. The chargeslieet of misconduct was served on the workman and by his reply dated 6-9-93, he confessed his guilt and extended appology with the insurance- that he would not repeat t he offence in future. The medical certificate submitted by th© workman was found to be improper and theicfore it was not accepted as a true document by the manage- ment. Thia management was left with no choice but to remove him from service for his alleged miicon- duct. The punishment of removal from service- im- posed by the management is perfectly just and pro- per and docs not require any interference. The work- man is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

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

1. Whether the DE conducted by the.manage- ment against the workman is just and proper?

2. Whether the management is required- to lead evidence to prove the al'cged miscon- duct of the workmen?

3. Whether the punishment of Temoval frpm service imposed on the workman by the management is just and proper ?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to re- instatement with bacx wages ?

5. Relief and costs.

5. Issues No. 1 & 2.—The woiknmn has admitted in his statement that the DE for misconduct regard- ing absence from duty without any intimation was conducted by the management again,t him. He had participated in the Enquiry proceedings, and suffi- cient opportunity was given to him to defend his case. By this statement of the workman, it is proved that the DE was properly conducted against the workman and he had defended his case properly. It is there- fore held that the DE conducted' against the work- man by the management is just apd proper. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

In view of my finding given on Ts^ue No. 1. the.

management is not required to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. Tlvs issue is answered accordingly.

6. Ispue No. 3.—The workman has ttatcd that he remained absent because of illness rjid he hnd inti- mated the manffgemeat regarding his illness. He hasi also stated that he had s"rrt the medical certificate to the managwn*nt in support of his application, Th"6071 management has not been able to challenge Ins ver- sion by adducing evidence that no such application was sent by the workman to the management. As per the statement of the wjorkman, it appears that he re- mained absent on account of his illness. It docs not appear that he absented himself from duly deliberate- ly.' In such a- circumstance, the imposition of penalty terminating his services docs not appear to be pro- portionate to the circumstances of the case. The lesser punishment shall meet the ends of justice in this case. In such a circumstance, I think it proper that, the workman shall not be entitled to back wages as cla'm- cd by him. This issue is decided accordingly.

7. Issue No. 4.—In view of my finding given on issue No. 3, the punishment of dismissal from ser- vice has been held to be disproportionate in th? cir- cumstances of the case. The workman is therefore entitled to reinstatement without back wages. He shall not be entitled to the back wages on the principle - of No work No pay.—This issue is dccirM accord- ingly.

8. Issue No. 5.-~Ou the reasom stated nbove, the order of termination passed bv the management against the workman is quashed. The workman shall be reinstatement without back wages. His absence from duty shall be treated MS ccntinvmii <;crvic- for the mirpose of pensionary benefits fwlv. The workman shall be reinstated within the period of 3 rr.onMis frcm the date of the awkrd.

9. Ctop-y of the award be sent to "the Ministry rf Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New De.'hi, the 27;h September, 2001 S O. 2874,—In pursuance of Section 17 of

[No. L-14O12/14/92-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/27/93

Presiding Officer ; Shri K. M. Rai.

Shri S. C. Sharma. Examiner Grade-II, House No. 8 1 / 1, Gram : Karanndi, Post Ranjhi, Jabalpur. Applicant.

Versus

The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khameria.

Jabalpur.

.Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of September, 2001 1, The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-14012/14/92-IRDU'dated 22nd January, 1993 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Kliamaria in terminating the services of Shri R.. C. Sharma, Examiner Grade II w.e.f. 21-5-91 is justified? If no:, what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman fs that he was work- ing in the Ordnance Factory, Khapiaria as Examiner Grade II. He has a good unblemished record of ser- vice. On 10-11-89 he was served with a charge sheet stating therein that he had indulged in man-handling of fu'-tory employee and had also been doing mnnev lend iig business inside the factory. He submitted hk ref y ;o the charge sheet and denied all the allegations n' jdc against him. The DE was conducted against him by the management. The disciplinary auihority accep- ted the report of the Enquiry Officer nnd imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on him on 21st May, 1991. During the DE proceedings he was not supplied the relevant documents relied on by the prosecution. The copy of the enquiry report vas not given to him to make his representation to ihe Dis- ciplinary Authority. He was not given adequate opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend his case properly before him. He preferred an appeal beftve the Appellate Authority against the order of dhnnVal from service. The Appellate Authority did not give considered judgement in his appeal. The charges level- led against him were not proved from the evidence, on record. The finding of Enquiry Officer is perverse and deserves to be quashed. He never indulged in the manhandling inside the factory prcmr.es ns alleged bv the factory management. The workman further alleges that one co-worker Hari Prasad had borrowed money from him for his daughter's marriage. He had never advanced any money as a loan to Shri Hari Prasad inside the factory premises. In reality he had given money to Hari Prasad to meet expenses of his daughter's marriage purely on humanitarian ground.

He had not manhandled Haii Prasad inside the fac- tory premises on the alleged date as stated by the management. There is no evidence to show that he was missing from the place of his duty. In this way not a single charge was proved against him during the course of enquiry proceedings and even then the en- quiry officer has held the charges proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority illegally accepted the re- port of Enquiry Officer and passed the order of ter- mination from service without examining the record properly. This order therefore, deserves to be quashed. The punishment of dismissal from service is dispro- portionate to the circumstances of the case. In view of all these facts he is entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and other monetary benefits.

3. The case for the management is that on 28th October, 1989, the workman went to F-9 Section of the factory to meet Shri Hari Prasad an Industrial Employee and demanded money from him amounting to Rs. 5500 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent. This amount was given by the workman to Hari Prasad as loan Shri Hari Pras:yi refused to pay the amount as he had already paid the same with interest to him. On the refusal made by Shri Hari Prasad the workman became angry and dragged Hari Prasad using physical force on him inside the factory premises. The workman handled Hari Prasad and also threatened him of the diar consequences. Shri Hari Prasad made a report of this incident to his immediate Officer. On receiving this report, the workman was suspended and charge sheet was issued to him. The following charges were framed against him :

1. Manhandling of a factory employee.

2. Money lending inside the factory during the working hours.

3. Threatening to the factory employee.

4. Missing from place of duty.

5. Conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.

4. The management further alleges that the work- man submitted his explanation to the charges served on him and rp. denied all the allegation made against iiin by ihc m.iniigemcnt. The management held the DTI a.'riinsi t;^-¹ workman and supplied all the relevant cl"i:ii:!ien's relied on by it. The workman participated in the enquiry proceedings and submitted his defence prop.-.vly. The adequate opportunity was given to him by t!>e Enquiry Officer to defend his case. After th? LTiquirv was over the Enquiry Officer considered R'1 ill.; material on record and held the charges proved aga;rr,l him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his renort to the Disciplinary Authority and copy of the report was suoniied to the workman for submitting his de- fi nc^ b?fore the competent authority. After consider- ing the entire facts and circumstances on record the Disc:plinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and imnoicd the ncnaity of dismissal from service on the workman. The workman preferred, an appeal BT.'rnf th? order of dismissal and the Appellate /•utJiori'y after considering the defence of the work- man, rejected his appeal. Jn this way the DE was con- ductsd in a just and proper manner against the work- man. The order of dismissal from service is just and proper and does not require any interference. Looking to the gravity of the charges the proper punishment has been awarded against the workman. The work- man is not entitled to any relief in the present case. 5, The following issues have been framed in this case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter;—

1. Whether the enquiry is just, proper and legal ?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribunal ?

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

4. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal ?

5. Rerlief and costs?

6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 :

It has been held by this tribunal on 24-2-99 that the DE was conducted aga'nst the workman in a just and proper manner. In view of this finding the management is not required to lend any further evi- dence to p'/ovo the alleged misconduct of the work- man. Both these issues are answered accordingly.

7. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 :

The DE has been held to be just and proper. The workman participated the enquiry proceedings and he had the ample opportunity to prove his defence. The Enquiry Of*":er considered the entire evidence on record and held the charges proved against the workman. This court is not competent to re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. The report of the Enquiry Officer does not appear to be perverse. He has considered the facts and circums- tances of the case prudently and thereafter held the charges proved against the workman. Talcing all these facts into consideration it is not possible to hold that the charges were not proved against the workman. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly. The workman had demanded the amount of his loan of Rs. 5000 with interest advanced to one co-worker Hari Prasad inside the factory premises during duty hours. Shri Hari Prasad refused to pay this amount to him on the plea that he had already paid it to him. On this reply, the workman manhandled Hari Prasrd inside the factorv premises and threatened him of diar consequences. This fact clearly goes to show that the workman had left his seat during the working hours without the permission of his immediate officer with an intention to recover his loan amount with interest from Hari Prasad. On refusal to pay the amount the workman manhandled Hari Prasad inside the factory which is highly objectionable and not unbecoming of govern- ment servant. Such type of activity is highly deplorable inside the Ordnance Factory where strict discipline is required to be observed. No employee can carry out the business of lending money inside the factory premises. Taking. all these facts into consideration the punishment of dismissal from service docs not appear to be disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. The punishment is perfectly just and proper which does not require any interference. Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 5 :

On the above said reasons it is held that the work- man is not entitled to receive any benefit in his case The imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on him by the management is just and proper The reference is accordingly answered against the work- man and in favour of the management.

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

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 27th Sfplember, 2001 S.O 2875.—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- Labcur Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in trie Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to ths management of Department of Telecom, and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 27-9-2001.

[No. L-400l2|233|91-IR(DU)] KULD1P RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 1RTBUNAL-CUM-L ABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CG1T]LC|R!18|93

Presiding Oificcr.—Shri K. M. Rai.

Shri Dadarao Nathuji Nuvnr.ge, At and P.O. Nalwadi, Beghar, Nag en Nagar, Tehsil & DMt. Wardha.

. . Applicant

Vis

The General Manager, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Wardha.

. . Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on tlr's 4th day of September, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide Order No. L-40012!233l91-TR(DU) dt. 204-93 3182 GI/2001—20

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :—

"Whether the cction of the management of Snb-Divisumul Officer(T) Wardha in ter- minating the services of Shri Dadarao Nathuji Navnnge is legr.l and justified ? If not, what relief he is eutiitled to 7" 2. The case for the workman is that he was work- ing as casual worker in the employment of the mana- gement since 30-7-86. He was being paid the wages at the rate of Us. 32.25 per day. He was engaged in laying down of the cables, digging trenches, remov- ing the mud, removing the defects and faults and doing all the inc'dcntal work L

3. The workman further alleges that as per the scheme of the Government of India, the casual worker:-; could be absorbed by the Telecommunication provided thev had completed 240 days continuous service in a year by stopping all recruitments of ouf- s'ders in the cidre. After absorbtion they could be posted wherever the vacancies occur. The mana- gement has failed to comply with this scheme. The termiiv.itioa order passed bv the management is illegal wh'ch deserves to be qua'hed. The workman is en- titled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits.