This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 43] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a

separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Rehabilitation Division)

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2001

S.O. 2890 —In exercise of the powers conferred by

Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Administration of

Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), the Cen-

tral Government hereby appoints Associate Town and

Country Planncr|Assistant Housing Commissioner in

the Land and Building Department, Government of

National Capital Territory of Delhi as Assistant Cus-

todians of Evacuee Property, in addition to their own

duties, for the purpose of performing the functions

assigned to such Assistant Custodian by or under the

said Act, with immediate effect.

[No 1 (1) |2001 -Settlement] PHOOL SINGH, Director (R-I ) 3250 GI/2001—1

[6095]6096 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 18th Ofctober, 2001

S.O. 2892.—In pursuance of sub eMe (W"rf Rule 10 of the Official Languages (-UaetfarXMtml Pur- poses of the Unwm) "

1. Sector Hqrs. BSF, Malda.

2. Sector Hqrs. BSF, Gurudaspur, New Delhi, the 1.8th Qolcfoer, 2001

3. Sector Hqis. BSF, Riimban,

4. Subsidiary Training Centre BSF,

Churachandpur.

5. 09 Bn. BSF

6. 10 Bn. BSF

S.O. 2fi(91.—In •pursuance of -sito rule (4) of Rule 10 of thcOfflciaJ Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices the Ministry -erf Home Affairs where the percentage of Hindi know- ing staff has gone aibove 80 per cent.

7. 32 Bn. BSF

1. Recruit Training Ccntre-3, CRPF,

8. 3f> Bn. BSF

PalHpuram (Kerala),

2. Comdt. 137 BM CRPF.

9. 53 Bn. BSF

1©. '8© An. BSF

[No. 12017/1/99-Hindi]

RAJENORA SINGH, Director (OL)

11. 96 Bn. BSF

12. 110 Bn. BSF

13. 117 Bn. BSF

14. 118 Bn. BSF

15. 136 Bn. BSF

16. 137 Bn. BSF.

[No. 1201>7/l/99-Hindi] RAJUMMU SINGH, Director (OL)6097 MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRI- VANCES AKD PENSIONS

(Departmeirt of Personnel & Training) New Delhi, the L2jh October, 2001 S.O. 2J$3.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19TO- (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh,ri R.S. Tripajihi,. Prosecuting Officer of the Central Bureau of' Instigations, as Special Public Prosecutor for the conduct of case* instituted by. D"thi Special EqJwft-Establishment in toe- Courts md appeal/ revisions! or other-matters, arising, out of these-cat,es in revisional or- appellate- conns established, by law in ajiy. State or Uhion Territory to which the provisions, of the. aforesaid- section apply.

[No. 225/1/2099-AVD. Il(j)]

HARI. SJJNGH, Under Secy.

New D*lhi, the 12th October, 2001 S.O. 2P94,—In. exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1A) of sections 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints.the follow- ing.Pro:>e.cuting Officers ofthe Central Bureau of Inves- tigation as Assistant Public Prosecutors for the con- duet* of cases instituted, by Ddhi Special Police Cs- tabJisbmoat in ths Courts- of Mjgastrates in. any State or Union Territoiy to- which the provisions of the aforesaid section apply.

(1) Sh. Dig Vinay Singh

(2) Ms. Bharathi S.

[No. 225/1/2000-AVD. ll(ii)] HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2001 S"O. 2 8 9 5 . ^ In exercise of the. po.we.es coirfortBdi by sub-section ( I) of section 5 read with section, 6* of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the- State Government of Ofissa, Home Department accoided vide Notification No; 46458 dated 28th August, 2001, hereby oxionds* thc- powers sind jurisdiction of the members - of. the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Orrisa, for investigation, qf oifenoes. punishable under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198S, and other olTences and criminal conspiracy, attempts, ab'4m

[No. 22S/24/2000,A\iEH-m, HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 2897.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) ol sub-section ( I) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits MA. TCCI Limited, Mumbai to pay consolidated stump duty of rupees one crore sixty seven lakh ninety four thousand nine hundred only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 447864 TCIC1 Unsecured Redeemable Bonds (August, 2001 Issue) in the nature of Debentures aggregating to rupees two hundred twenty three crore ninety three lakh twenty thousand only, to be issued by the said company.

[No. 46/2001-Stamps/F. No. 33/62/2001 -STJ MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy ORDER

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001

STAMPS

S.O. 2896.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits The Tamil Nadu Flectricity Board. Chennai to pay consolidated stamps duty of rupees one crore ninety five eighty three thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 11% TNEB Power Bonds-Series 4/2000-2001 12(15% in the nature of promissory notes of rupees one lakh each aggregating to rupees one hundred ninety five crore eighty three lakh only allotted on 15-06-2001, by the said Board.

[No. 45/2001—STAMPS/F. No. 33/57/2001-ST]

R.G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2001 S.O. 2898—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub- section (1J of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti- vities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673| 35|2001-Cus. VIII, dated 17-S-2001 under the said sub-section directing that Sliri ]3rij Mehra, R\o (i) C|d Shri Iqbal Mohan Mehra, 29, W a nt Mahal, C-Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (ii) P.O. Box 21723, 203, Dubai Pearl Building, Nasser Square, Deira Dubai (UAE) be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Mumbai with a view t0 preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the aug- mentation of foreign exchange in future.

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

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by Clause to) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commis- sioner of Police, Mumbai within 7 days of the publi- cation of this order in the Official Gazette.

fF.No. 673|35|200!-Cus. V11T1

S. K. SINGH, Under Seey.

6M

ORDER

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2001 S.O. 2899.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti- vities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 6731 36|2001-Cus. VIII, dated 17-8-2001 under the said sub-section directing that Shri Manish N. Vora, R|o (i) C |o Shri Kiran N. Vora, 12D, Petit Hall, Tahnee Heights, 66, Napean Seal Road, Mumbai-400 006 (ii) P.O. Box 17845, Jevel Ali, Dubai, U.A.E. be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Mumbai with a view to preventing him from acting in.-any manner prejudicial to the augmentation or foreign exchange in future.

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

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by Clause (b) of sub-section' (1) of Section' 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commis- sioner of Police, Mumbai within 7 days of the publi- cation of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673|36l2001-Cus. V1I11

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

(Beparfmant of Economic Affairs) (Insurance Division)

N^w Pclhi, the 1st October, 2001

S.O. 2901.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurant JjUgulatorv and Develop* ment Authority Act, 1999 (4Tbf 1999) the Central Governmej* h c r^ ^foiais Shfii, $, -(f, 5te"ffla as Whole-time Member of the said authority in the pay scajft o$ Jta._ fflm-M5QP wMi iflWMrfwiftv

[F. No. 8/1/AOQJUtos. VU iR,liW^AHW"Efojtstor Now ffitelhi, th£ 'irStti October, 2001

&& .^OftWVlftcws, (h* J^nt Sfc^fcry fc> fee

sectWft "1> <9f-&WtiW 3 ot Ijifr CeiWCT^oo Of

3 7 | " ^ C u ". VH6. "U""1 29dfe2Qpl W"fei Or WJd sub-section directing that Shri Divytukt T UiffiM.t R|o No. A-9, Sirdar Patel CHS, Nehru Road, Ville Parte ^East), MumMM^Oe^ be dataiaeci atfd'kept in aBSlodyJtt^ec^tnaiEriaWi, JWfcwwb*i )*iMfc^y,ww to |feven"M"/tei^lteJp 9"*ing i^ aW Bj"iSWP"f, f"W^- cial to the augmentation of foreign exchange in fytW¹.?.

?_. Whfisft^.ihfr' CwtwJt GwcriHiieM' h^ xe^w *

3.ftfeJMf,Iftmjefoce, KI ¥^ej;cisc Qf tjje i?AW& con-

ferred by Clayje <" *i yibcsec^qjp, (1) of ^fiction 7 of the said Act, the Centrah Government hereby directs the i^Qiesqjd pprasp, f o i UW to^for- the Commis- sioner of PoUi;e, l$um,bai Wthjri 7 daiys of the publi- cation of this order m-the'Ofecial Gazelte.

[F. No. 673/37/2001 -Cus. VIII]

S, K. SINGH,, Under Secy.

&&16102 THE GAZETTE OF INBlA--. OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)l New De.lhi, the 15th October, 2001

S O. 2902.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use lor Official purpose ol the Union) Rule, 1976, the Cental Government hereby notifies the following offices, under the Administrative control of Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Aflm^, where of more than 80 pbr cent of staff have acquired yoking knowledge of Hindi

I Name of Company : Life Insurance Corporation

of India

(1) Branch Office, Lohaghat (Uttaranchal)

(2) Branch Office Blunder, Branch Code-1223

(Rajasthan)

(3) Branch Office, Khajuraho

IT. Name of the Company : The New India Assu-

rance Company Limited

(1) Divisional Office-121500

(2) D AV Branch Office, Jaipur

(3) Branch Office-350607, Abhobar

(4) Branch Office-351905, Mehatpur

(5) Branch Office-351901, Hoshiarpur

(6) Branch Office-351605, Mandi Gurdaspur

(7) Branch Office-352701, Rajpura

(8) Branch Office-352803, Phagwara

(9) Divisional Office-II-352800, Jullandhar

(10) Branch Office-351401, Shimla

(11) Branch Office-350602, Mansa

(12) Branch Office-350104, Chandigarh

(13) Bianch Office-351601, Pathankot

(14) Branch Office-351604, Kanthua

(15) Branch Office-350601, Bhatinda ,

(16) Branch Oflice-352802, Jullandhar

(17) Branch Office Sector-35, Chandigarh

(18) Branch Office, Sector-22, Chandigarh

(19) Branch Office, Kalka

(20) Branch Office, Mandi, Gobmdgarh

(21) Divisional Office-1, Ludhiana

(22) Bianch Office-350603, Malot

(23) Branch Office-350606, Rampurafull

III. Name of the Company : National Insurance

Company Limited

(1) Branch Office, -Samana6103 (2) Branch Office-II, Lairit Ma#g Near Cheema ChaV/k Ludhiana.

(3) Branch Office, Muktsar

(4) Branch Office, G.T. R.oad Phagwara.

(5) Brand* 'Office, Jain School Street Mansa-151505

(6) Divisional-Office-I

B.M.G, Chowk Jullandhar.

(1) D.A.V.-II Office '20-G.T. Road Juttandhsr.

(8) Branch Office

•Navha.

(9) Branch Office Samrala.

(10) Direct Agent Branch-I,

Jullander.

(11) Branch Office,

Cfihehrata.

(12) Direct Agent Branch Office Kocher Market Ludhiana.

(13) Direct Agent Branch

-Chandigarh.

(14) Division^ Office-1

lO3MLawaranoe Road Aipritsar.

(15) Branch (pffice-,8 KeSargani DiidrriSiia.

(16) Branch Office-7 Milinfeai.

(17) Direct Agent Branch

8-M, Gaaaaught Circus New Delhi.

(18) Divisional Office-26

23/B^S:, Arncfl-House, Ansari-Road Darya Ganj, N"w D©lhi-1100Q2. (19) Jullander D.A.V.-2 Office

20-G.t. Road Julkndep.

(20) Nava Branch Office

Nav-\.

(21) Branch Office. Samrala.

(22) Direct Agent Branch Office Koobet Murktt Ludbiana.

(2$) Direct Agent Braftoh

Ghfilndifearh.

3250 GII2O01—2,

(24) Divisional Offlce-I

10? tia"htltise ^Road AmrittKr.

(25) Ludhina Branch Offlcc-8

Kesar Ganj, Ludhiana.

(26) Direct Agent Branch-I

Mlander.

(27) Branch Office, Cheralta.

(28) Bhatinda Divisional Office

Bhatinda.

(29) Divisional Office-I

Bhatinda.

(30) Divisional Offico-1

B.M.C. Chowk Jullander City.

(31) Mansa Branch Office,

Manasat

(32) Amritsar Branch Office-TV, Tele^jhone Exchutaft* Amntsar.

(.33) Jullander Branch Office-Ill

JuHander.'

(34) Tullander Branch Offlce-IV

Patel Chowk, Jullander City.

(35) Mukeria Bralaeh Office

Mukeria.

(36) Jagrown Branch Oflice

Lajpatrai Road Jagrown Ditrict Ludhiana.

(37) Gorekh Branch Office-l

Shaie Building, Cienema Road Gorakhpur (U.P.)

(38) Delhi Regional Office-n Jhendawalan fixfenslon New Delhi-110055.

IV. Name of the Company : United India Insurance Company Ltd.

(1) Regional Oflice-2,

5th floor, toiilash Building (Oannaught Mace) Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

V. Name of the Company : Unit Trust of India (1) Branch Office

Jeewan Parkash, C-Block. Ground noor Saniay Palace, M.G. Road Agra-282002.

(2) Branch Office 2nd Floor, 59/3-Rajpur Road, Dehradun-248001.

(3) Branch Office

Bandra(East), Mumbai-400051.

B-614-617, Nzhza Ground¹, N.f.T. (Behind Fire Brigade Office) Faridabad-121001.

[No. 110]3|12[2000-H.I.C] (4) Branch Office

S. SOUNDKR RAJAN, Under Secy.

Regency Piaza, 5-Park Road Lucknow-22oOUI.

(5) Main Branch Office 3rd and 4th Floor, Deli Tej 8[B, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg New Delhi-] 10002.

(6) Brapch Office

Flat No. 401,402, Mukesh Appartmeut, Fingus Estate, Near Hotel Sheel Shimla-171001.

(7) Branch Office

41-Navyug [Market, Near Singhanl Gat-j Ghaziabad-201001.

(8) Branch Office

United Towers. 3rd Fluor 53-Leader Road AUahabad-211003.

(9) Branch Office

Anand Bhawan, 3rd Floor Sansfl* Chand'ra Road JaipJur-302001.

(10) Branch Office

Menerva Centre, l?t Floor Stafion Road Jodhpur-342001.

M l) Branch Office

1617-E, Civil Lines Kanpur-208001.

(12) Branch Office

tsl Floor, D-58I2.V-1, Bhawani Mrrket Rath Yatra Yaransi-221001.

(13) Branch Office

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 1st Floor, Ganga Yamuna, Commercial Complex, Plot No. 202, Maharana Partap Nagar, Anchal-1, Schcem-13. Hahib Ganj Bhopal-462001.

(Department of Commerce) (14) Branch Office

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2001 City-Centre. 2nd Floor, 570 M.G. Road Tnddr-452001

(15) Branch Offics

Ground & 5rh Floor f>rivindfen Bjildinp FTOv's'on Road Patnrl-800001.

(1

S.O. 290?..—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection Act 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Government hereby recognises for a period of three years from the date of publica- tion of this notification Premier Analytical Labora- tories Hospct having its registered Office at 7, MRK Building Near Anadavali HospitaJ College, Road, Hcspet-583201, as an agency TJ^T TV-war, 4'th Floor O.N. Biork. Bandra Kurla Complex, for the inspection of minerals and Ores Group-I namely Iron Ore, specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry of Commerce Notiflcaiion number S.O. 3975 dated 20th December, 1965, prior to ex- port, subject to the following condition, namely :—

(i) that Premier Analytical Laboratories Hos- pet, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examiner the method of inpection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965.

(ii) that Premier Analytical Laboratories Hos- pet in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by- such directives: as the Directors (Inspection and Quality Control) may give in writing from time to time.

(File No. 5/14/2001-EI&EP]

RAJ SINGH, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION

(Delhi Division)

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2001 S.O. 2904.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1), read with clause (g) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 £61 of 1957), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in tlu notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Healtih No. 12-173/ 57-LSG dated 30-12-1957, namely :

"In item. No. 10(A), for the entry "Shri K. T. Gununukhi, Additional Chief Planner",

6105- the following entry shall be substituted, namely, "Shri K. Y. Gurumukhi. Chief Planner, Town & Country Planning Organization".

[No. K-1101l!20|97-DDIA] V. K. MISRA, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF POWBR

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001 S.O. 2905.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Section Undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Power, the staff whereof have acquired 80 per cent working know- ledge of Hindi:—

1. Feroze Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Project, Post Office : Unchahar, Distt. Raibareilly-229406. Uttar Pradesh.

2. Auraiya) Gas Power Station, Pos^ Office : Dibivapur, Distt. Auraiva-206244, Uttar Pradesh.

3. NTPC Eastern Reeion Headquarter, Patna, Alankar Place, Second Floor, Boring Road, Patna-800001 (Bihar).

[No. 110'1712194-Hindi]

AJAY SHANKAR, Jt. Secy.

2 C&ftrrf¹" Watebousinff GoTpbtattou,

Regional Office;

Tu^l: Marg, Udypg Bhaiwan, Jaipur (Kajasthan).

[No. E-1101J|l[2001^indi] RAJNIRA5TJAN, Jt. Secy.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS. FOOD &

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION!

(Department of Food &. Public Distribution)

New Delhi, th* 19th Octbfosr, 2001 New Delhi, Ihe l&th October, 2001

6WI

MINISTRY OF STEEL

NeW Delhi, the 16th October, 2001

S.O. 2908.—Iri etcfcise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersessidn of notification of the Government of India vide S.O No. 1891 of 2nd August, 1997 tho Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in.column 1 of the Table below, boing officers equivalent in rank to a gazetted officer of Government, to be estate officers for Jhe purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officer by or6108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA'. O C T O B E R ^. 2001/KARTtKA 5, 1923 [FART H—SM. 3(ti)] under the said Act, within the local limit of their jurisdiction in respect of the categories of public premises specified in column 2 of the said Table, namely:—

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Categories of public premises and limit of jurisdiction 1

2

1. Chief Manager (Personnel and

All premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, and under the administrative control of, the Bharat Refractory Limited/ Ranchi Road Refractory Plant at P.O. Marar, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).

Administration) Ranchi Road Refraclories Plant, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

2. Chief Manager (Personnel and

Premises belonging to, leased or taken on lea^e by and under the administrative control of the Bharat Refiactory Limited/ IFICO Refractories Plant at Marar, PjQ. Marar, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).

Administration) IFICO, Marar, P.O. Marar, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

3. Chief Manager (Personnel and

Premises belonging to , leased or taken on lease by and under the administrative control of the Bharat Refractory Limited/ Bhandaridah Refractories Plant at P.O. Bhandaridah, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).

Administration) Bhandaridah Refractories Plant, Bhandaridah, Bokaro, (Jharkhand)

4. Chief Manager (Personnel and

Premises belonging to leased or taken on lease by and under the administrative control of the Bharat Refractory Limited/ Bhilai Refractories Plant at P.O. Civic Centre, Bhilai District, Durg (Chhatisgarh).

Administration) Bhilai Refractories Plant, P.O. Civic Centre, Bhilai District, Durg (Chhatisgarh)

5. Dy. General Manager (Personnel and

Premises belonging to, leased or taken on icase by and under the administrative control of the Bharat Refractory Limited at Indira Gandhi Marg, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City-827 004, District Durg (Jharkhand).

Administration) Corporate Office, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (Jharkhand)

[No. 5(21)/96-HSM] NARAIN DASS, Under Secy.

2. Regional Liaison Office

Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. 6, Mifo Jayanagar Road, Post Office- Khanapalra, District-Kamroop, Guwati-7 81002, (Assam).

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

3. Hindustan Petroleum Managerial Development

Institute NigdL Mumbai-Pune Highway Nigdi, Pune-4tl 04-1.

Gas Authority of India' Ltd.

4. Gas Authority ct India Ltd.

46-7-18, Jetty Avenue, Danvaipet Rajahmundry-533 103 (A.F.)

5. Gas Authority of India Ltd.

LPG Recovery Plant, Usar-402 203 Post : Malayan, Tatuka'-AHbag District : Rajgarh, State-Maharashtra.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Pipeline Division)

6. Salayal-Mathura Pipeline, Gauridarh

7. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Sendrah

8. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Ramsar

9. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Rajola Pump Sta-

tion, Rajola

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS

10. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Chaksu New Delhi, 16th October, 2001

11. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Siddhpur

12. SalayaKMathura Pipeline, Surendrana^ar 13. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Viramgam

14. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Koyali

15. Salya-Mathura Pipeline, Vadinar

16. Salaya-Mathura Pipeline, Panipat S.O. 2909,—Tn pursuance if sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976. The Central Govern- ment hereby notifies the following offices of the Pub- lic Sector Undertakings under the administrative con- trol of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. The 80 or more per cent stoff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

17. Koyali-Ahmedabad Product Pipeline, Koyali PO : Jawahar Nagar, District Vadodara- 391320(Gujarat State).

Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.

18. Koyali-Ahmedabad Product Pipeline, 1. Regional Liaison Office

PO : New Railway Colony, Sabarmati, Distt. Ahmedabad-380019 (Gujarat State).

Bongaiigaon Retiuery & Petrochemicals Ltd, Rubi Centre,, 75-C Park Street, Calcutta-700 016.

[No. 1101ia)/l999--2001(Hindri| C. P SINGH, Dy. Director (OL)611.0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : QCDQBE*. ,27. ZQQl-rfKARITKA 5. 1923 fRuiT H*^d"fc. JflW New Delhi, the 17th October, 2001

S.O.2 910. —Whereas, the Dy. Collector Government of Andhra Pradesh (Rajahmundry) was authorised vide the erstwhile Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals (Department of Petroleum and Natural Ga") notification S.O. No. 522'(E) dated ftke 30!, "l^i^fto perform'the functions of competent authority under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pip line (Acquisition Qf JWght of U kr in tand) Act, 1962 (50 of 18^2), f

And whereas, Gas Authority of India Limited has sought declaration of additional competent authority u"d ;r the said A<"t to execute the pas pipeline netwprk in Andhra P,rajiqsh;

Now. thenforc in pursuance qf sfaVK (a) of JJection 2 of the said Act, fhc Central ?3ov"srnmfint hpropy Q1"O cu+horise the person mentioneel in column (1) of the Schedule gj)"cn ljjlow tp perform the/nations of the CDm^tent air.*hority under the said Act for laying of the pipeline by M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited for transportation of Nati.-al Gas/Liquifie

SCHEDULE

Area of luflsdlctibn

Narm and Address of the p?rion/s

2

1

Whole State of Andhra Pradesh K. Lakshminarayana Dy. Collector, Vizag, C/o M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited, Visakhapatanam.

[File No. L-14014/13/OI-G.P.]

SWAMI SINGH. Director6111

New Dcllii. Ihc22ihOctober, 2001

S. 0.2911.— in pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Pelioleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in I.and) Act. 1962 (50 oi~ I % 2 ), the Central Government hereby amend the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No, S.O. 1515 published on the 1st Auyusl, l'WS, iis follow s.-

2. In the said notification, in the Schedule, m column 1 foi para 1 and entiles lolatuu' thcielo the following shall be substituted, n a m e ly -

"Shri Lokendra Pal Singh, Deputy Collector (on dcpuUlion l"n>m (he (io\ cinmenl of Uttar Pradesh),

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Sonepal to Meerut and Kurukshetra to Saharanpur branch pipelines ol Mathura-Jalatidhar Pipeline, K-33, Pallavpuram, Phase-JJ, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh)"

|N(i !<-! l o| \ I/')"()K-II|

I I A R I S I I K M M \K IIIHILI S co 325OGI/20O1—36 U2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 27,2001KAKTIKA 5,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 6113 6114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 27,2001KAKTKA 5,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 6115 6 1 16

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: O C T O B ER 2 7 . 2 0 0 1 K A K I T KA 5 , 1 9 23

| P A RT I I — Si - •. 3 ( i t )|6117 6118 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCnffiER27,2001KAKnKA5,1923 [PARTU—SEC. 3(ii)] 6119 6120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER27,2001KARTIKA 5,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 6121 fi122 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTCfflER27,2001KAKnKA5,1923

[PART II—Sec. 3 (U)l6123

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2001

S. 0.2912.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Limited); And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user (ROU) in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ; Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ; Any person interested iri Ihc land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification under sub-section (1) of section (3) of the said Act,,arc made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Competent Authority, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Punjab Refinery Project, Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) L.P.G. Bottling Plant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bhagal Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342005.

6124 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:OCTOBER27,2(X)lKAKnKA5,1923

[PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)l

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Nokha District: Bikaiw State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

Name of Village

Survey No.

ROU- Area

1

3

2

BIRAMSAR

378

377

376 374

Hect. Are.

4

1

23

0

01

Cart Track G.L. Chila to Biramsar

388

393

394 1

400

399 Cart Track G L.

398

397

414

415

416

417

419

418

462 459 458

493

454

449 447

446 Cart Track to Biramsar G.L.

445

120

117

14 01

0 0

14

0 0

45

0

42

26

0 0

02

Q

0

74 20

0

Q

0 0

34 38 27 15

20

0 0 0

03 47 02 64

0 0 0 0

31 28 57

0 0

57

0

03

0

0

06 28

Cgrt Track G.L. Biramsar to Saved

116

115

125

112

112

602 111

110

92 76 631 76 D

0

02 42

0 0

75 02

0

34

03

39 26

25

47

0 0- 0 0 0 0

066125 Tehsil : NOkha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan3 4 0 1 BIRAMSAR (c*ia.) Cart Track G L

45

BOMIYASAR

KHICHIASAR

Cart Track G.L.

230

199 199 108

CT Pipasar to Khichiasar G L

98

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

32 34 03 30 01 74 23 04 36 02 56 05 33 01 97 54 15 02 26 40 61 05 03 86 59 14 01 02 19 17 01 03 49 72 03 21 02 03 68 08 53 41 48

2 7§ 80 81 82 83 49 45 601 46 301 302 298 297 296 273 265 264 262 255 251 252 234 380 230 232 220 219 107 199 374 373 375 108 110 100 101 322 92 93 371 98 83 398 826126 THE GAZETTEOF INDIA ;OCTOBER27,2001KAKT1KA5,1923 |PARI II—Si < . 3 (ii)| Tehsil : Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 1 2 3 4 14 DHUPALIYA 46 06 46 570 45

569 45 65 0 0 0 0

08 0

Cart Track Khichiasar to Dhupaliya G.L

44 28 27 24

21

10

08 47 04 0 0 0

30- 0

0

Cart Track G L Dhani to Dhupaliya

11

6

97

02 03

0

39 13

Asphalted Road Dhupaliya to Mukam PWD

108

106

111

105

119

CT Dhupaliya to Himatsar G L.

120 121

03

14 31

22

0 0 0 0 0 0

46

0

06

0

01

0

HIMATSAR

1552

1606

1589

1590

1592

0

93 46

0

37

0

29

0

54

CT Dhupaliya to Field G L.

1594

1813 1584

1584

1254

1254

1766

1255

1252

1250

1249 Cart Track Dhupaliya to Himatsar G L

1247

1248

1182 1175

0

02

0

03

0

10 0

63

0

31

0

04

0

50

0

52

0

01

0

01

0

28

0

05

0 0

25 18

1174

0

01

1183

44

0

1173

0

02

1172

Cart Track G L Himatsar to Dhupaliya

1171

0

02

0

54

1127

0

02

Cart Track G L

1793

1126 0

016127 Tehsil : Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 4 1 3 2 1126 HIMATSAR 1129

1130

35 13 0 0

Cart Track G L. Kakra to Dhani

1133

1136

1142 Cart Track G .L

1141

1140 Cart Track G.L. Himatsar to Dhani

1826 978

978

979

985

981

954

944 Cart Track G.L. Himatsar to Field

948

947

945

946

924

927

928 G.M. Choub G L

929 Cart Track G L. Dhupaliya to Kakra

93,1

930

02 17 30 0 0 0

03 0

12 0

02 0

24 24 54 0 0 0

04 0

38 0

0

05 03 0

50 01 02 02 34 0 0 0 0 0

22 0

0

01 01 0

04 0

33 0

KAKDA

1330

1329

1332

1333

1080

1577

1614

1081

1577 1082

1083

1587 1083

1084

1087

1089

1092

1071 Asphalted Road Jogiyon ki dhani to Kakra G L

1070

1555 1053

1054

3250GI/2001—5

54 0

0

60 08 0

25 0

0

43 0

02 44 03 0 0

08 0

05 0

0

19 0

03 0

43 0

07 0

02 0

45 0

27 0

496128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. OCTOBER 27,2001KARTKA 5,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (ii)] Tehsil : Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan2 4 a 1 KAKDA 0 0

02 33 1055 1049 1047 1048 1041 1042 1016 1017 745 744 743 742 773 1627

Cart Track G L.

821

821

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

SH.Nokha to Ratangarh P WD

1628 822 832 833 831 830 803 801 799

798

1603 798 800

141 1 40 1.1R

0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0

UDSAR

Cart Track G L. Kakda to Udsar G.L 84

04 19 29 03 52 54 01 17 32 40 01 26 15 26 05 01 50 51 22 04 28 06 02 16 32 03 54 02 36 32 35 07 28 04 15 69 09 76 60 04 47 04 23

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

136 199 160 159 161 158 157 170 141 137 136 128 92 533 85 876129 Tehsil : Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 4 1 3 2 71 0 86 Ops*/* £ < W^

79 77 76 71

559 71

73

66

0

20 72 01

05

Cart Track G.L. Kakda to Udsar

62 64 Cart Track G.L.

65 256

KURJADI

255

03 34 02 05

51

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

09

01

Cart Track G.L. Siniyala to Udsar

259

241 318 258 259 169

168

170

171

172

167 111 Road G.L. Siniyala to Kurjadi G M Population G L.

112 114

116

146

145

144

143

348 143

139 140

Cart Track Sajanwasi to Meusar G.L 0 0 0 0

SAJANWASI

Cart Track Sajanwasi to Sadhasar G-L 0 0

136 42 40 39 29 28 23 24 25 26 46 316 _ 65 0 0 0 0

37 01 36 25 23 20 38 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

04 02 03 65 61 02 0 0

32 0

45 29 0

08 0

0

38 0

25 0

44 02 31 33 19 0

63 01 45 0 0 0

70 0

05 04 016130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; OCTOBER 27.2001KARTIKA 5,1923 |PARTII—SKC. 3(ii)| Tehftil: Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 1 97 0 0 0

0

0

SADHASAR

0

47 01 44 73 90 20 02 10 25 27 44

0 Cart Track Sajarwasi to Sadhasar G.L 0 0 0 0 0

0

37

56 16 2 I.) 65 62 59 83 58 1323 1322 1307 1303 1302 1286 1287 1289 1282 834 835

40 04 840 841

26

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

843

0

17 01 57 41

0

Cart Track to Sajanwasi G.L

0 0

02 03

0

0

01 02 34

16

0 0 0

10

0

06

Johacl G.L

0

04

0

49 14 22 06 37 34

46

60 01

15 04 842 2140 843 781 845 779 861 862 863 758 759 757 762 754 753 749 750 898 899 513 514 523 520 521 526 527 529

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

31 26 386131 Tehsil: Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 4 1 2 SADHASAR 0 05 538 I 3 Cart Track Meusar to Sadhasar G.L. 0 597 598 599

595

595

600 2148 602

603 Kund

604 605 606

591

589 Cart Track Sadasar to Field G.L.

590

586

587

588

19

22

23

24 Asphalt Road Sadasar to Uttamdesar G.L 0 0

40

25

26 27

31 34

32

33 02 19

0 0

08

0

21

0 0

05 05

0

21

0

01

0 0 0

21 03 17

0

08

0

02

0

01 01 0

0

18 0

15 0

59 0

11 0

01 03 01 0

38 0

41 01 0 0

0

07 24 0

12 0

0

15 44 LALAMDESAR

2150 33 574

0

47 BADA

573

572 570

564

Cart Track G.L.

820 564 577 593 800 593

592

590 581

588 886 583

552 Asp.Road Uttam Desar to Lalamdesar Bada G.L. 0

0

03 37 0 0

51 0

0

06 24 0

01 0

21 0 0

02 25 0

0

35 34

16 0 0

09 02 6132 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:C)CrOBER27,2001KAKnKA5,1923

[PARTH—SEC. 3 (ii)]Tehsil: Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 1 2 3 14 0 LALAMDESAR 858 99 0 44 100 BADA 101

0

38 (OnM-)

108 BidG.M. G.L.

89

Cart Track G.L. 0

60 0

01

14 0

BidG.M. G.L

88

MetalRoad BadhnuSadasar to Chhota Lalamdesar G.L. 0

109

04

76

BidGM G.L

251 250

255 CT Badhnu Sadhasarto Chhota Lalamdesar G.L.

357

358

355

353

354

351

345

364 Cart Track Laiamdesar to Sanwatsar G.L.

412

411

409

395

394

0 0

49

0

02

0

02

0

33

43

0

0

21

0

51

0

43

36

0

01

0

0

22

0

01

0

75

0

70

01

G.M. BidJohadG.L

391

387

850 382

381

378

376

877 377

876 377

317

0

0

36

0

71

0

10 0

01

64

0

25

0

0

08

0

01

0

CT Bidasariya to Lalamdesar G.L

870 304

303

03 0

63

57 0

BIDASARIA

5

4

3

Johad G.L.

8

2

1

01

0

58 0

0

13 0

31

29 0

10 0 6 inTehsil : Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan 1 4 3 2 BADHNU

Talai G L Johad G L Johad G L

1759 1758 1754 1753 1750 1751 1749 1748

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1747

0

1745

1744

1702 1703 1704

0 0 0 0 0

1699

o

1698

1706 1414

1413

1412 1386 1387

1384

1389 Johad G.L

1350

1352

1359

1358

1313 1360

1363

1361 1312

1306

1302 1301 1298 1297

Johad G.L Talai G.L Johad G L Johad G L

,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38 89 37 46 05 25 01 01 31 02 22 08 54 07 51 01 01 17 04 01 16 49 10 05 63 46 06 01 25 01 01 08 04 33 09 09 02 046134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA-OCTOBER 27.2(M)1 KARTIKA5. 1923 |PAKI II—Si-.-. 3 (ii)|

Tehsil : Nokha District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

ROU- Area

Survey No.

Name of Village

Hect. Are.

3

4 1

2

BADHNU

1271

0

21 1272

0

45 1275 1276

0 0

1235

0

0

1236 1237

0

04 35 02 16 41 1219 1220

0 0

20 06 1217 Cart Track G L

0 0

1216

1224

0

1909

0

1212

0

1208 1207

0 0

1206

02 27 13 30 23 57 05 17

0

1196

12 1203 1824

0 0

43 1196

12 1195

1196

10

0 0

1910

|No.R-31015/27/2001 OR-n] HARISH KUMAR. Under Sco,,6135 MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

(Directorate General nf Iniployment and Training) New Delhi, The 19th October, 2001 SO. 2913.—In pursuance of sub-rule (2) and (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purpose of the union) Rules, 1976 as amended 1987, the Central Government hereby notifies the following subordinate office of Directorate General of Employ- ment & Training (Ministry of Labour), the staff whereof have acquired Hie working knowledge of Hindi.

1, Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handi- capped Kolkata.

[No. DGE&F-l 1017j2|99-Hindil N. LANKA, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 27vh September, 2001 S.O. 2914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Depute Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribmal, Chennui as shown in the annexure in rhi; Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage menu of Syndicate Hunk and their workman, which was received by the Contra! Government on 27-09-2001.

[F. No. L-12OI2/199/99-IRflMl)l C, (JANGADHARAN, Under Secy,

ANNRXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TMBUNAL-CUM-LABOTjR COURT, CHENNA1 Monday, the 27 th August, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikcyan, Presiding Officer.

Industiial DispuU Nc. 272/2001

(Tnnvl Nadu Slate Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 291/99) ,fn the matter of the dispute for adjudicatiun under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisDdtcs Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri K. Chandrasekaran and the Management of Syndicate Bank, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union, Chennai.

. . T P..irty|Cla>mant.

AND

The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Syndicate Bank, Chennai. If PailyjManagement.

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant, . M|s. Row and Rcddv, Advocates, For the Management : M|s. T.S. Gopntan and Co. Advocates The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) 'of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No .L-12012|199|9')fIR(B-N) dated 26-10-1999.

This reference has been made earlier lo the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as T.D. No, 291199. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tiibunal, the Government of Tndia, Miniustry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribun.il for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 272|200I and notices were sent to the counsel on cither side, informing them about thf transfer of this case to this Tri- bunal with a direction tn appear before this Tribunal on ¹2-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side were present with their respective parlies and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 10-S-2001, uron perusing the Claim Statement. Counter Statement, other material napeis on record, upon penisinu Ihc documntary evidenc" M in no either side nml upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter havinc stood ovc- till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank \n Justi- fied in dismissal of the services of Shri K. Chandra- sekaran Steno of Poiiachi Branch'' Tf so, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The averments in thi- Claim Statement filed by the T PartyIWnikmnn are briefly as follows : —

3. This averments in the Counter Statement of the II Party |

Syndicate BanL ai-j briefly as follows :

The II PartylSyndicote Bank (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) is a nationalized bank having branches thruu>;h- JIII the conntiy including one at Pollachi. 'Iho bank prant loans amojiy others to priority sectors like apiculture small cntrcpi't'neurr, etc. '1 he loans granted under the priority sector is covered by the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Cor- poration, Any loan granted in the priority sector becomes bad, the bank makes claim on the DICGC who in turn after satisfying that the loan is irrecoverable, icimburse ccrtnin percentage "f loan. When the loan is considered bad, the amount standing to the debit of the loan is transferred to the account of DICGC's claim lodged account and the loan account will remain open under this head of account. The staff of the brunch are normally aware of tho loans which transferred to DICGC's clajm lodge account and|or written off, However, the borrower will not be aware of the transfer of loan amount to DICGC's account. On 7-12-85 one Muthuswamy, a tailor, who is having a tailor shop availed u loan of Rs. 4,000 under PSL!CGCLSP'7O|85. As the loan was outstanding with no change of recovery, it was transferred to DICGC's account and vvrirci off sometime during 1990. On 7-l2-m96, R. Muthuswamy came to the Pollachi branch and complained to the Ban* manager that al about I U)" am. on 24-11-1996, he came to the branch to repay the dues, ihat he approached Ihe concerned clerk who happened to be in his neighbour, to prepare a credit challan for remitting the amount to his lorn account, thnt Ihe concerned cleik advised him not to remit his dues, that he would talk to the Manager to waive a poition of the loan, that the concerned clerk wanted the amount to be handed over to him. that bclievinij the concerned cleik. Muthuswamy entrusted Rs. 44O0 to him, that the concerned Clerk as'iiuvd him thaf he would eete the h;7 lc> 13-2-1998 was conducted. The Enquiry Oflici'r. without pro- perly assessing the evidence on record, MI an impartial man- ner submitted his report dated 9-5-1998 statin.' that the con- cerned workman is guiltj of "ross misconduct ai alleged in the charge sheet. For thai the concerned woikmaii hus sub- mitted his u,,Jv dated 1K-5-1998. By ;, Hler dated IN-6 9S the Respondent|Bank informed Ihe concerned workman to come for a prisons! Soaring on 24-6-1998. After that personal hearing conducted by Ihe Depuly General Mana"er|DiscipIi- nary Authority, an order dutcd 15-7-1998 was issued to the concerned workman tor dismissal from s.?rvi". The concern- ed workman preferred an appeal dated 16-7-4S. The appeal proceedings was conducted on 9-9-98. The Appellate Autho- rity by its order dVed 5-10-9N had dismissed that api-:il. Neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the \ppcllate Autho- rity has considered the evidence on - record independently. They have failed lo cive adequate reasons for accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thru an industrial dispute was raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner on 30-11-9R. On his submission of failure of conciliation rtport, on 30-6-1999, the Govt. was pleased to refer th's malt 6137

on 29-1 l-9b. He also staled thai on t>-12-96 R. iviuihuswumy cuine to the oraucft LLIIU suugtH ins help m pu-p.uimj tile cieuit trrdlKin tor which he readily obliged. 'Itie concerned tiLTh. pleaded mat uiLicattcr he did dot know what had ntipptiiea. Acan-dinig to him on 7-12-96 K. jyiuthuswmny tame io'the tirunca and wunleti to pay cull for which ne pujpuioU a tiiailan and rcmuieu tne motley. He denied tnc charges. The concerned clerk, was asked to appear tor 'jn enquiry. In the enquuy witnesses were examined on the side 01 tlie management and also the .side of. the concerned cieik. On 9O-J998 the £nciuiiy Ollicer gave hk icport nold- ing thai the CMUBCS agamsi ine concerned clerk were duly proved. By his representation dated 18-5 19954 the concevn- ed clerk ga\e his comments on tne lindmgs of the Enquiry Officer. After considering the representation, by a notice diited 1N-6-1998 the concerned clerk was asked to appear lor a personal hearing. The concerned el.-fik, attended the personal heurmg. Alicr considering his repiesentation the Disciplinary Authority passed order on 15-7-199£ dismissing the concerned clerk, trom service. The appeal preferred by the concerned clerk was dismissed on 5-10-1998. For the proved misconduct of the concerned woikman in the domestic enquiry the order of dismissal passed by the Disci- phn&iy Authority is perfectly justified, '1 he punishment of dismissal awiuded to the concerned clerk need not be intciterred with. The disciplinary action against concerned clerk was not initiated by way of victimization of or for trade union activities of the concerned clerk. Though, Mr. Muthuswamv was pressurised by Ihe concerned clerk and his inends Lo witii- draw the complaint, in the enquiry he stood by his original complaint dated 7-12-96. The charges proved against the concerned clerk shows lack of integrity and honesty and therefore, the punishment of dismissal cannot he said harsh or excessive. There is no scope to interfere with the quan- tum of punishment even under section 11A of Industnal Disputes Act by this Tribunal. Therefore, j"n award muy be passed¹ upholding [he dismissal of Hie concerned clerk by rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.

4. The Point for my consideration is :—-

"Whether Ihe management of Syndicate Bunk is justi- fied in dismissal of the services ol Shri K. Chandrasckaran, Steno of Pollachi Branch ? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Point :

^ ,_

conducted an enquiry, wherein the charge sheeted employee, who is tnc coiicciacid workman was ivpiewntul by the uene.al iecretury ot Syndicate Bunk EfllpUyecs Union as a deiemx- repiestntative. Ex. VV6 is the xe.o\ copy of the enquiry p^ceeumgs. In the domestic enquiiy. four witnesses for me Managtm-iil side were examined anJ 23 documents wcie hied as management exhibits. On the side of. the delin- quout employee, no document wus iikd -is d^tunce exhibits, l tie chaiye sliectal employee himself was examined as DW2 and four more witnesses were examined as def.eiic.-s witnesses as O w l, L>WJ IO Dvvx Alter analyzing \he evidence let in Deloie him the Enquuy Ofhcer has givtn ;, tindins that the cuarges levelled uRamst the delinquent employee have heen proved. On completion of the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Uincei lias submitted his report dated 9-5-1998 with his find- nig.,. Jhc .\eiox copy ot the same is Ex. W7. >or that report ui the Enquiry Orhcer, the concerned workman has sub- mitted his reply dated 18-5-98. The xerox copy of the same is 1 \. \VS. t>i:oaequent to the submission ot the concerned workman as his reply lo the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Au.nority has issued a memo to the concerned workman inentiuninR the proposed punishment and informing him lo attend the personal hearing on 24-6-98. The xerox copy of the memo dated 18-6-98 is E.\, W9, In pursuance of that memo given by th; Disciplinary Authority, the personal hear- ing was conduc'itd by him on 24-6-1998 and the xero.x copy ot the minutes of the personal hearing is Ex. W10. Subse- quently, the Disciplinary Authority has pussed an order dated 15-7-98 dismissing the concerned employee from the seivices of (lie bank. The xerox copy of that order dated 15-7-1998 with the covering letter to the concerned employee is Fx. Wll. On the same day, the Deputy Peisonnel Manager of the Respondent|Bank informed the concerned workman that fie has been dismissed from the services of the bank. The xerox, copy of the letter is Ex, W12. Against that the concerned workman has preferred an appeal dated J6-7-98 to the Appellate Authority of the RespondentJDaok. A xerox copy of that appeal is Ex. W13. The Aptwllate Authority heaid 'he appeal of the concerned workmai represented by the defence repiesentative on 9-9-98. The xerox copy of the proceedings of that appeal is Ex. W14. The Appellate Autho- rity passed an order in that appeal on 5-10-98 confirming the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the concerned woikman. The xerox copy of thp order of the Appellate Authority is Ex. W15. The copy of tiir iiune was forwarded lo the concerned employee with his covering letter dated 6-10-98 by the Deputy Personnel Manager. Tfu- xeiox copy of that covering letter is Ex. W16, Ex. WI7 is the xerox copy of the postal cover containing the residential address of the concerned employee sent by Registered Post. On the side of Ihe Management, documents prriaininjf to the alleged misconduct referred to in the charge sheet given to the concerned workman have teen filed ns Ex. Ml to M23 as xerox copies. All these documents have been exhibited before the Enquiiy Officer in the domestic enquiry as MEX 1 to MEX 23. It is the conlentioi of the Petitioner Union tlu,i the Rcspondcnt|bank had conducted a f'aise of nn enquuy ,-iiid a perverse finding was given bv the Enquiry Officer without properly .innlyzinu the oral and documentary evidence 'On record,

of fact as to how he relied upon the c/idence oral and documentary let in by the .Management in the enquiry and lias slated his reason ror reiying me evidence to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employe lias been proved. Nothing hits been stated in this cuse on the side of charge sneeted employee as a motive for the Management to give a false compliint through the borrower tailor Mulhuswamy. Further ther-i was no prior en^imiy between ihe si"d borrower Muthuswamy and the ciia&e sheeted employee. The loan was taken in the yeur lytil "nd was written off in the year 1989. The Enquiry Officer in his report has clearly stated that ilie charge sheeted employee has kept the amount of the borroweo without credit the same in his account till 7-12-96 and had issued a false counterfoil dated 6-12-96 and it came to light when he credited the sum of Rs, 4400 to party's loan account on 7-12-96 thereby misappropriated the Mime and derived undue pecuniary gain at the cost of the bank and it amounts lo gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank Vide clause 19.Mj) of Bipartite Settlement, The Disciplinary Authority before imposing the proposed punish- ment offered a personal hearing to the charge sheeted employee and it is evidenced from Ex, W10, the minutes of the personal hearing of the Disciplinary Authority. After considering all thtse things, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal under Ex. W l l. From all these things, it is seen that the delinquent employee Sri K. Chand- rasekaran the concerned workman has not disputed the events mentioned in Ihe charge. The fact of borrower Muthu- swamy met the charge sheeted employee on 29-11-96 and 6-12-96 and his preparation of bogus credit slip dated 6-12-96 under Ex, M2 have not been disputed by him. Further it is seen from the enquiry proceedings that he has been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence effectively. He has availed the same and lias examined foui more witnesses apart from himself duly assisted by a defence representative in the departmental enquiry. So under such circumstances it cannot be said "that the Enquuy Officer has given a perverse finding and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not considered properly the materials available by way of evidence in the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, it is seen from records that the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Ihc Appellate Authority have not acted in violation of principles of natural justice while dealing with the case of this concerned work- man Sri K, Chandrasekaran. So under such circumstances, it is seen that the action of the Management Syndicate Bank is justified in dismissing the workman Sri K. Chandrasekaran from the bank services ns a steno of Pollachi branch. So the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

6, In the result, an award is passed holding that the Management of Syndicate Bank is justified in dismissing Sri K. Chandrasekaran, Steno

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected nnd pronounced by me in ti:c open court on this day the 27th August, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined : On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED: For I PartylClaimant :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 10-12-96 Xerox copy of the memo to the Petitioner

by the Management.

W2 17-12-96 Xerox copy of the suspension order of

(he Management to the Petitioner.

W3 19-12-96 Xerox copy of the letter fiom HIL' Manage-

ment to the Petitioner.

W4 11-2-97 Xerox copy of the Charge sheet from the

Management to the Petitioner.

W5 4-4-97 Xerox copy of the letter of Petitioner to

the Management,

of the challan dated 6-12-lyyG in ihc name of R, Muthii- jwamy for the amount Rs. 4400 said to have been received by tne bank on the same day. In that cnallnn in me column account number n is) stated as W|o to snow that it is a written oil account, tx.. Mi is tne xeiox copy ol Ihe bank, challan dated 7-12-96 tor the remittance of Ks. 4400 in the name of K. Muthuswumy for account No. D1CGC 94|89. Ex, M4 is the xerox copy of the corresponding challan of the counteifoil fcx Mi, In thai chuilan, at the lelt side of the bottom ihe concerned employee Sri K. Chdndrasekaran has put +its sigmrtuie as signature of the deposit.^, lij the charge sheet Ex. W4 it is slated that the concerned employee had handed over the counterfoil for Rs. 4400 dirted 6-12-1996 as if the same was issued on behalf of the branch. This has been established by Ex, M2. The concerned employee in his reply under Ex. W5 has given an explanation Mating that Ihe said Mtithuswamy came to the branch on 6-12-96 and sougtit his Jielp in preparing the credit challac which he readily did and thereafter he does not know what had happened. So from this it is seen tnat he has worked the preparation of challan on 6-12-96 under Ex, M2 which bears Lhe bank seal as cash received on 6-12-96. But m the Cashier's scroll for 6-12-96 tinder Ex. M5 there is no entry available on that *lay for a sum of Rs. 4400 mentioned in Ex. M2 coun- tealoil for the challan. The tact alleged in 111; charge sheet Ex. W4 about the happening on 29-ll-iyyi, b-12-1996 and 7-12-1996 had not been disputed by the cnarge sheeted employee Sri K. Chandrasekaran. Erom the enquiry proceed- ings- Ex. W6, it is seen that four witnesses have been giv en evidence on the side of the management and the fourth witness MW4 is (lie borrower Tailor Mr, Mulhuswamy and on the side of the delinquent employee, apart, from himself, four more witnesses have been examined. The Manager of the PoJIachi branch has given evidence as MW1 before the Enquiry Officer, la his evidence, he has clearly stated that there was no remittance on 6-12-96 to the tune of Rs. 4400 as mentioned in Ex. M2 challan, He has slated in his evi- dence that on 7-12-1996 at about 11.00 a.m. the tailor Muthuswamy came to his room and produced the xerox copy of the credit slip counterfoil dated 6-12-96 and wanted to know whether it had been credited to the account. Then he called for the Assistant Manager and asked him to verify whether -the amount was credited into his account and on verification he was informed that there was no such entry anywhere in the records and later the said Muthuswamy told him that he had handed over a sum of Rs. 4400 to Sri K, Chandrasekaran on 29-11-96 to deposit the same into his loan account. So from this available evidence, it is seen that there is materials available as a basis for the charge levelled against the concerned workman. So it cannot be said that it is without any kgal evidence and the same has not been proved by the Management witnesses before the Enquiiy Officer. The charge sheeted employee Srj K. Chandrasekaran while giving evidence as DW2 has admitted about his prepara- tion of credit challan for Rs, 4400 on 6-12-96 and further he ha-s stated that when he asked Muthuswamy about the same tie replied that he could not remit the money on 6-12-96 and hence he destroyed the credit challan filled up and given to him on 6-12-96 and that based on this as per his request he prepared a credit challan again on 7-12-96. He has also admitted in his evidence that said Muthuswamy approached him on 6-12-96 and his preparation of the credit challan for his loan account for a sum of Rs. 4400. The Ex. M2 is the counterfoil of the credit slip, the concerned workman has* prepared for Rs. 4400 on 6-12-96. So it is seen that it has not seen destroyed on Ihe other hand, it contains the bank seal as received cash, In the cross examination, the charge sheeted employee (us ad- mitted that it is a written off record. DW3 and DW4 have deposed that at the request of K. Chandrasekaran on 7-12-96, himself, K. Chandrasekaran and Seethararni"i went to the shop of the customer to withdraw the complaint and he demanded Rs. 10,000. On the next day, he and Sitaraman met Mr, Muthuswamy at his shop and they agreed to pay him and he agreed to withdraw the complaint. From this it is seen that tne concerned workman Sri K. Chandrasekaran along with two of his friends pressurized the complainant Mr. Mirtiiuswamy to withdraw his complaint. Til's has been dis- cussed by the Enquiry Officer in his report and he has given a finding (hat the delinquent employee hus accepted the cash of Rs. 4400 from the customer and issued a fake counterfoil dated 6-12-96 without actually depositing the money into the party's loan account and derived undue pecu- niary advantage at the cost of the bank and misappropriated the said cash during 29-11-96 to 7-12-96. The Enquiry Officer in his report has clearly stated under the head appreciation

W6 22-0-97 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings.

W7 9-5-98 Xerox copy of the Enquiry Officer's report.

WK 18-5-98 Xerox copy of the letter of Pctitwner to the Management,

W9 18-6-98 Xerox copy of the show cause notice by the Management to the Petitioner.

W10 24-6-98 Xerox copy of the minutes of personal hearing of the Disciplinary Authority,

Wll 15-7-98 Xerox copy of proceeding of the Eoquny Officer.

W12 15-7-9K Xerox copy of the dismissal order.

W13 16-7-98 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Appellute Authority.

W14 9-9-98 Xerox copy of ihc minutes of the peison;)l hearing of the Appellate Authority.

W15 5-10-98 Xerox copy of the final proceedings of the Appellate Authority.

W16 6-10-98 Xerox copy of the letter of Dy, Person- nel Manager to the Petitioner enc'nsini; there with proceeding of General • Manager.

W17 28-10-98 Xerox copy of the postal cover sent by RPAD.

For the II Party|ManagemeiU :

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 7-12-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Sri Muthu- samy to the Management.

M2 6-12-96 Xerox copy of the counterfoil of credit slip for Rs. 4,400.

M3 7-12-96 Xerox copy of counterfoil of credit slip.

M4 7-12-9(5 Xerox copy of th ccredit slip for Rs. 4400.

M5 6-12-96 Xerox copy of the Cashier'; scroll.

M6 6-12-96 Xerox copy of Cash Officer's scroll of 1984.

M7 6-12-96 Xerox copy of single lock book (OB 17141 I.F 252.

M8 7-12-96 Xerox copy of Cashiei's Scroll.

M9 7-12-96 Xerox copy of Cash Officer's scroll.

M10 1-J2-96 Xerox copy of Cashier"; scroll.

M il 7-12-96 Xerox copy of the ledger folio of Sii Mu- thusamy PSL CGC 70|85 (LF No. 84, 168).

MI2 Nil Xciox copy of L|F. No. 38 and 3') and 34, 35 showing D1CGC claims ledger accounts in respect of Sri R. Muthusamy.

Ml3 Nil Xerox copy of suspense account L.F. No. 48.

Ml4 7-12-96 Xerox copy of OP 167 of Polluchi branch in respect of Suspense Head of Account.

M15 6-12-96 Xerox copy of the Day Book Ledger (1740) Folio No, 202 and 201.

MI6 7-12-96 Xerox copy of Day Book Folio 202 and 203.

M17 Nil Xerox copy of General Ledger ljolio No. 222. of Pollachi Branch in respect of KUspense (others) Head of Account.

Ml8 Nil Xerox copv of B-23 attendai.ee register of November and December, 1996,

MI9 Nil Xerox copy of Ledger Folio No. 2(4773 find 3155-82 pertaining to S.B. A|c, 20-KJ2 of the Peti- tioner.

M20 Nil Xerox fopy of the cheque return register shnw- inc entry of 15-11-95 and 27-2-96 in respect of returned cheques issued to Petitioner.

M2I Nil Xerox copy of tlw H.O. Ci.cular No. 8O|88 and 90196.

M22 Nil Xerox copy of letter .jf Syndicate B:ink, Pollftchi Branch issued to the Petlioner.

M23 Nil Xerox copv of- tte infection ic*wn of Sri Krishnan, .Deputy Inspector.

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001

S.O. 2915,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ofl 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, NajjpUr as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation lo the management of, State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by trut- Central Govern- ment on M 0-2001.

[F. No. L-12012]235i97-IR

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT]:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Pi'esidinft Officer.

Reference No. CGJT|171|2000

State Bunk of India, Bhandara Branch.

AND

Nsircsh Indal Rangari.

AWARD

The Central Government. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (dj of Sub Section (I) and Sub Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication, vide order No. L-12OI2|235|97|IR(B-l) dated 5-6-98 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, through it's Asstt. General Manager, (II). Dy. General Manager, Region-I Zonal Office, S. V. Patel Marg, .Nagpur, The Branch Manager., Bhandara Branch, in terminating the services of Shri NHiesh Indal Rangari, w.c.f. 20-3-95, is legal, proper and justified 7 If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled 7"

The workman Naresh Indai Rangari has submitted state- ment of claim that he was tipponjted Messenger in Class-IV cadre at hBhandara Branch, State Bank ofl Jndia in January, 92. He had worked for more than 1000 days comtineously from April, 92 to 20-3-95. He was working-in. Bhandara Branch of State Bank of India for about 3 years and had therefore, worked for more than 1000 days. His tarminatjon of scrvjee w.c.f. 20-3-95 wns illegal and unjustified.

He hns JIISO gwen the details of wxttrtng,days as under:

23-1-92 to 22-1-93—290 days,

23-1-01 to 22-1-94—341 days.

23-1-9 \ to 22-1-95—331 days.

The workman further claimed that he was getting monthly salary and his payment of salary was credited in the State B;ink Account of Bhandara Branch of S.B.l,

He was appointed ayainst clear vacancy. In the year 1992 two persons namely Shri Gond and Shri Lute had retired. In 1993 one permanent Messenger Shri Atkari had died. He was doing the work of taking out the Ledgers and keeping them in Cupbo-arJ, sorting vouchers, taking instruments and Rettister for payment to Cashier, distributing of vouchers, attending Post Office, distributing L.A.C. intima- tions and distributing Local Duk, which aie the duties of regular nature.

As he had worked for more than 240 days in each calender year from 1992 to January, 1995, his service should have been regularised. He was not paid any com- pensation for retrenchment Under Section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act.

After his termination some junior employees namely Rajesh Maruti Ncware, Kishan Mahadcv Lilare, Pyarelal Shnnkar Bhute, Jagdish B. Kirnapure were appoin- ted. H.is termination is illegal and he should be reinstated with full back wages.

The management of State Bank of India in their W S. stated that the workman was employed on temporary basis due to exigencies ofl circumstances and on account of ir- gent need. It is also admitted by the Bank that he woikcd as Messenger and Sweeper, Sometimes he worked for full day and sometimes for part of the day.

The Bank management stated th;it uncording to the settlement between the Federation of Slate Bank of fndia Employees Association and the management of State Bank of India through agreement dated 17-11-87 the temporary employees and daily wage workeis and casual employees were considered for permanent appointment. A list of such employees was prepared in 19()2 and the name of workman Naresh Rnngari figured in that list at Serial No. II. It is further mentioned that the list has exhausted on 31-3-97. The workman therefore has no claim for regularisation, From the side of workman the statement of the workman Shri Narcsji Rangari was recorded. He was cross examined on 5-2-2001. Fiom the side of management Shri V, S. Kumar was examined by the bank. His cross examination was recorded on 14-6-2001. Both the parties have submitted documents. The representative of the workman and the representative of the State Bank of India have also sbumittej their written Arguments. The arguments were also heard orally.

I have considered the entire Oral and Documentaly cv.- den;e on record and! the arguments of the parties.

Workman ha* submitted the copy of Register rnwntained by State Bank of India, Bhnndara showing the attendence of the workman from fi-4-92 to 30-11-94. These documents Kx. W-l Anncxuic A shows that the workman had heen attending the duties of the Bank from 10.30 A.M. to 6.30 P.M. . He was paid ft>r Sundays and othci holidays also. These documents bear the seal and signature of the officers of the State Bank of India.

The workman hns also submitted certificate issued bv Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhandnra d.itcd 25-4-94. In the year 1902 Naresh Rangari worked from fi-4-92 to 31-12-92. His working days were 26K days dur- ing this year. In 1

Another letter dated 21-4-95 has been filed by the v,ori man. In this letter it is shown that Naresh Rnrigari had worked as Messenger from 6-4-92 to 24-3-95 in State Bank of India. Bhandnra Branch, He worked ag under :

6-4-92—31-12-92—268 days.

1-1-93—31-12-93—341 days.

l-i-y^l—31-12-94—331 days.

1-1-95—24-3-95—67 days.

The Branch Manager of S.B.t, has therefore certified the attendence of this workman from 6-4-92 to 24-3-95. The total number of working days was 1007 (one thousand seven) days. The above certificate issued by the Branch Manager lo Naiesh Rangari shows that he was working contineously trom 6-4-92 to 24-3-95. He was there-lore working as a Regular Employee. The above documents also show that he had been working for full working days in each month and¹ was getting his regular salary as Messenger. 'Ihc management has not explained any reaon as to why his ser- vice was termnated orajly w.e.f. 20-3-1995.

The Bank management had not given any notice for termination of his service.

The statcmct of Shri V.S. Kumar, officer of the bank thai Naresh Rangari Oid not work contineonsly for 240 days, is therefore baseless.

In his cross examination thho officer of the Bank Shri V, S. Kumar also, slated that in view of the settlement between the Federation of the State Bank Statf Employees Associa- tion and the management of the Bank a Waiting List fur leguiarisation of services of Temporary and Casual Workers was prepared. In that list the name of Naresh Rangari was at Serial No. 11. His name was mentioned in the WaitniL' List after taking his inteiview, This witness Shri V, S. Kumar further says that he does not know how many per persons of this Waiting List were given employment bv tbv Bank.

The workman is bis statement on 5-2-2001 has s that the Waiting List was prepared in 1992. His name wa.; in that Waiting List at Serial No. 11. He has also stated that he was appointed as Messenger againt permanent vacancy caused by he retirement of V. P. Gond and S, Lute.

From the above documentary and oral evidence on re- cord it is clear that Naresh Rangari had worked for moic than 240 days contineooisly in each calender year from January, 1992 to 20-3-95. His termination there!ore was illegal.

The name of" Naresh Rangari was also in the Waiting List prepared in 1992, His termination on 20-3-95 was also un- justified. This list was to be kept alive upto 31-3-97 and according to the settlement between the Federation of the State Bank of India Employees Association and the manage- ment of State Bank of India, he could be absorbed against permanent vacancy upto 31-3-97. In these circumstances also the terrninatron of Naresh Rangarr w.e.f. 20-3-95 was illegal and unjustfied. He, therefore should be reinstated w.e.f. 20-3-95.

ORDER

The action of the management of State [Sank of India through its Assistant Manager and Deputy General Mana- ger, Rcgion-1, Zonal Office, S. V. Patel Marg, Nagpur, Hi Branch Managei, Bhandara Branch in terminating the ser- vices of Naresh Rangari w.e.l 20-3-95 is Ot legaj, propci or justified. His termination from service was illegal and he is directed to be reinstated in seivic-e as Messenger w.e.f 20-3-95.

The workman had been engaged in some other employ- ment during this period after 20-3-95, so he is not entitled to any back wages.

The workman is not entitled to any other relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Date: 12-9-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer6141 New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001 S.O. 2916.—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 Nagpur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman- which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-l2012!257|99-IR(B-I)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Vaidya, State Bank of India, Branch Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur is legal, proper and justified ? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled and from which date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter T

A N N E X U RE

BEFORE T HE C E N T R AL G O V E R N M E NT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding OHiccr R E F E R E N CE NO. CGTT'45 2000 Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India

The workman R. S. Vaidya has submitted statement of claim that he was working as Typist-Clerk, State Bank of India on 27-11-75. Another co-employee H. A. Gundawar was also working in the same bank at about 10.45 A.M. His chair was at a distance of 20 feet from the chair of H.A. Gundawar in the same room. While he was talking with other employees in the Bank, Gundawar came to his counter and started beating him wiih Chappal and abused him. He gave written complaint to the Branch Manager of the bank Shri P. S. Tikle same day. He along with five others employees also moved application to the Regional Manager. State Bank of India, Region-Ill, Mumbai on 27-11-75 regarding this occurrence. He also mentioned that the Branch Manager is favouring H,A. Gundawar.

AND

R. S. Vaidya

A W A RD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section f l) and Sub-section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L"J2012|257!99!lR(B-D dated 09-11-99 on the following schedule.

On 26-05-76 the Branch Manager passed the order that pending completion of en- quiry against him, his annual increment will not be granted. Chargesheet was issued to him on 25-08-76 and his explanation was call- ed. 16-09-76 was fixed in the enquiry. The enquiry was concluded on 16-09-76. Second show cause notice was issued to him on 17-12-77 and the stoppage, of three increments was proposed by the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his reply on 03-01-78. However the disciplinary authority passed the order on 27-04-7R thn* his two increments due on 23-01-78 and 23-01-79 shall be stopped and an ;'dverse remark will be entered in his ser- vice record.

On 27-06-78 he filed appeal and the Chief Regional Manager, Nagpur vide order dated 03-10-78 reduced his punishment that in pbee of two increments his one increment will he stopped.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the maniccmcnt i.e. Asstt. Gcner.il Manager. Reginn-IL Zonal Office. Na.r^pur in imposing punishment of congela- tion of increment to Shri R. S. Feeline agreed this order he raised this dis- pute before AT.C. Ministry of Lnbour vide order dated 09-11-99 refenvd the dispute to C.O.T.T. Court No. II at Mumbai.

This fiV vyns received in this Court in April. 2<">nO. The statement of workman, Rflmesh $np rf SiHifn'-Tn Vnidva was record- ed in this Court on 27-02-2001. From the6142 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KART1KA 5, 1923 [FARF II—SEC. 3(ii)] side of management Harish Chandra Gundawar, Manager of S.B.I, was examined. His cross examination was recorded on J 7-04-2001.

Both the parties have submitted docu- ments'and Written Notes of arguments. The representative of both the parties also argued the case orally.

Advocate S. N. Kumar has argued the case for the Bank. The advocate for the workman also argued the case orally.

I have considered the entire Oral and Documentary evidence produced by the parries and have considered their arguments.

Tn cross examination on 27-02-2001 the workman stated that he was appointed as Typist-cunvClcrk since 23-01-71. The punishment of stoppage of one increment was passed in 03-10*78, At the time of alleged occurrence i.e. 27-11-75 he was the Secretary of the union, of the State Bank of India em- ployees. He further stated that H.A. Gundawar had beaten him on 27-11-75. He was also found guilty of creating indiscipline by beating him in the office and had submitted his reply to the chargesheet issued against him on 25-08-76. H.A. Gundawar was punish- ed by issuing a warning to him. No other punishment was awarded to him. Whereas his one increment has been stopped. The punish- ment awarded to him is discrinrnatory.

Shri Harish Chandra. Gundawar the wit- ness of the management stated that on 27-11-75 R. S. Vaidya was the Secretary of the workers union. He and R.. S. Vaidva were working as Clerk in the same Branch. H. A. Gundawar further stated in his state- ment, that R. S. Vaidya was not cooperating with the management in the work ,of the Bank. He was the President of the workers union and Ri S. Vaidya was the Secretary. He had differences of opinion with R. S. Vaidya re- garding the working of the union. R. S. Vaidva beat him in the room of the office of the Bank on 27-11-75 between 10.30 A.M. and 11.00 A.M.

He UQnd to work in the office for n longer time. He used to come to the office earlv nnd continue to work even after 5.00 P.M. R, S. VaiHvn threatened hirn and osked him not la work beyond office hours. On the.direrf'^n of flic ftrnnch Manoaor hp used tn rovn^ carry and worked even in late hours in the evening.

The timings of the Bank were 10.45 A.M. to 5.45 P.M.

On the alleged day i.e. 27-11-75 he had come to the olHce of the Bank at 10.30 A.M., Kamesh Vaidya came to the office of the Bank at 10.45 A.M. or 11.00 A.M. R. S. Vaidya started watching who has come early and finding him sitting and working, he started beating him at 10.45 P.M. It is suggested to this witness that to save himself from the punishment of causing injury to R. S. Vaidya, he gave complaint against R. S. Vaidya and submitted his explanation on 06-09-76. In that explanation dated 06-09-76. H. A. Gundawar had accepted his mistake and con- fessed the guilt. H. A. Gundawar has admitted in cross examination that this letter dated 06-09-76 bears his signature. In this case the workman has only restricted his claim to the quantum of punishment awarded to him. His main grievance is that when H. A, Gundawar is punished for assaulting him and has been awarded the punishment of warning only, then the action of management for stopp- ing his one increment for the same act in the same . occurrence is discriminatory.

I have considered the fact and arguments and evidence on record. The application moved by R. S. Vaidya and five others to the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region-Ill, Murnbai dated 27-11-75 clearly shows that R. S. Vaidya was not having good relations with Branch Manager. Even prior to this reference on 24-09-75 at 5.00 P.M. Branch Manager P. S. Tiklc and R. S. Vaidva had exchange of hard words. H. A. Gundawar was having close relations with Branch Manager, P. S. Tikle.

The letter dated.26-05-76 issued by Branch Manager P. S. Tikle to R. S. Vaidva work- man also shows that before the completion of enquiry Shri P. S. Tiklc had passed the order that annual increment will nof be grant- ed to R. S. Vaidva, workman.

The application dated 06-09-76 of H. A. Gundawar in resnonse to the charges framed against him through chareesheet dated 25-08-76 it is evident that H. A. Gundawar had regretted for the incident which hapoened on 27-11-75 in Branch of the State Bank while be i.e. H. A. Gunrhw^r and R. S. Vaiftavo \vt-n~¹ on durv. The letter dated 06 00-96 of R S Variiya shows that he had nr\t nefpntpd the chnr^e and had nlleged that H. A, Gundawnr had assoul ted him in the6143 management is directed to pay regular incre- ments to the workman R. S. Vaidya as and when they became due to him.

The consequential benefits arising from the adjustment of the above one increment shall also be paid to him. The workman is there- fore entitled to the above relief claimed by him,

ORDER

Bank Premises without any reason. From the above explanation of H. A. Gundawar and R. S. Vaidya it is evident that both these Clerks were facing the same charges. It appears that H. A. Gundawar accepted the charges so he was punished for his miscon- duct by awarding punishment of warning only. The workman R. S. Vaidya did not accept the charge so the Branch Manager passed the rreW on 26-05-76 that increment due to him v ill not be granted.

Tiie above order dated 26-05-76 therefore shows that the punishment was awarded to R. S. Vaidya even before the concluding of the enquiry.

The action of the management i.e. Assistant General Manager, Region-IL Zonal Office, Nagpur in imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment to R. S. Vaidya State Bank India, Branch Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur is not legal or proper.

This act of the management was discrimi-

natory.

The order of punishment dated 27-04-78 of the management is set aside and the manage- ment is directed to pny the arrears of stoppng³ of one increment along with consequential benefits that have accrued to the workman by making adjustment in his pay and other emoluments from the due date.

When H, A. Gundawar and R. S. Vaidya both have committed the same offence and the guilt was proved against them, their should have not been different standards tor awarding punishment.

The reference is answered accordinaly.

Dated 14-0-2001..

In the above circumstances the appellate authority also reduced the punishment from stoppage of three increments to one increment.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer The order through which the punishment was awarded for stoppage of two increments in place of three increments also shows that the adverse remark was also recorded in the Service Book of R. S. Vaidya. This re- mark would have also affected adversely on the promotional channel of workman.

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001 The statement of the workman, R. S. Vaidya shows that he has opted for voluntary re- tirement and stoppage of on*¹ increment will affect on his pension Emolument also. Considering the above circumstances and evi- dence, the punishment awarded to the work- man i.e. the stoppage of one increment is discriminatory with regard to the punishment The punishment awarded to R. S. Vaidya is discriminatory with r^card to the nun^hment awarded to H. A. Gundawar for the same offence.

S.O. 2917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 f 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labpur Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[ No. L-12012/468/2000-TR(B-I)] In view of the above facts and evidence, the action of the management i.e. Assistant General Manager, Region-TI, Zonal Office, Nn^pur in innosine nunishment of sfopnage of one increment to R. S. VnirN-n, State Rank of Trulin. Branch Balbrnur- Di^tt. Chnpdrnpur is nnt W il or nropfT. As tl-p rjiTvnbm^nt nwirtfrrt to ii\? workman is not justified, the

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3250 GII2001—7.

ANM-XURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. JAIPUR No. CGIT-11/2001

Reference No. L-12012/468/2000/lR(B-I) dated, 05-02-2001

General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya SoIU Karamchari Sangh. 59, Patel Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Schcmc, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

...Petitioner.

Versus

The Managing Director, SBBJ Head Office, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

...Respondent. ATTENDANCE:

For the Petitioner : Shri Praveen Balvada. Advo- cate, Shri J. K. Yogi, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Shri Anurag Agarwal, Advocate,

Date of Award: 10-9-2001.

AWARD

The Central Government vide order mentioned above has referred the following dispute under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein- after referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudication :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ol' the management of State Bank of Bikancr and Jaipur, Jaipur by not giving seniority and other notions! benefits to Shri Umesh Crwndr.t Bhacdwai, cleric w.e.f. 15-4-72 keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreni.- Court in case of Shri Radheshyam Sharma V/s. Stale Bank of Bikaner and Taipur decided bv the Supreme Court on 23-4-98 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from whai date ?"

The petitioner General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiva SBBJ Karmachari Sangh (hereinafter referred as the Sangh) filed the statement of claim stating that Shri Umesh Chandra Bhardwaj was appointed by Respon- dent Bank (hereinafter referred as the Bank), on 15-4-1972 on temporary basis against permanent vacant post in Karauli Branch. His temporary appoint- ment continued from time to time an overall period 6f 280 days. The Bank called Mr. Bhardvvaj for writ- ten test on 29-10-72 for permanent cadre, On passing the written test, interview was held and list of success- ftlll candidatures wias declared in which his name was also included but no permanent appointment was given to him. Thereupon he raised the industrial dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur and as a consequence thereof as per settlement dated 29-9-87 he was appointed in the clerical cadre on 4-1J-87 in the pay scale of Rs. 520—1660. It was further stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1337/1998 Radheshyam Sharma Vs. State Bank of Bikancr and Jaipur, Jaipur held as under :—-

"The appellant was entitled to be appointed in 1974, we allow this appeal and the appel- lant will be deemed to have been appointed in 1974 when the appellant been selected. Tn view of such appointment with effect from 1974, the seniority of the appellant will have to be reckoned and all benefits flowing from such notional appointments will have to be given to him. But so far as back wages are concerned, we are not in- clined to allow the same. We, however award a cost of Rs, 50,000 in favour of the appellant in this appeal."

After passing of the above judgment by the Apex Court Mr. Bhardwaj made a representation to Bank- on 3-10-98 bringing to its notice that the facts and cireumtfinces in Radheshyam's ca^-e are identical to his case and the judgment of the Apex Court being the law of the land as such consequential benefits inclusive of seniority be awarded to him. The Bank paid no heed to the request hence a dispute was raised before the settlement officer and the matter having not been settled before the settlement officer the dis- pute has been referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. It was prayed that Mr. Bhardwaj may be deemed to be appointed on 15-4-72 the day he was appointed on the b'ls's of recruitment test held on 29-10-72 and interview held on 19-7-73. The benefit of seniority may also be- riven to him and all benefit:--' mav be allowed flowing from notionnl appointments. More- over suitable cost may also be awarded to him.

In reply to the claim the Respondent stated that Mr. Bhardwaj was engaged on temporary basis in the Bank in broken periods from 15-4-72 to 13-8-75 for 280 days. He raised an industrial dispute, which ended in failure in conciliation on 12-6-87. He again approa- ched Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jaipur nn 1-9-87 to persuade the Bank to reinstate him without back wapes. as the dispute was 10 years back After a long discussion both the parties agreed for reinstatement of Mr. Bhardwaj as per the terms of the settlement, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :—

"CO The management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has decided to offer employment to Shri U. C. Bhardwaj in the clerical cadre.

(ii) The appointment of Shri Bhardwaj in cleri- cal cadre will be a fresh appointment but he will be fresh appointment but he will be Riven ?h" usual increments of gradua- tion, if applicable in his case. He nav also be sriven increment for the temrjorarv ncn'od of service for tlv temporary period of "-ervice for thf actual number of days.

(iii) No back wa6145 cadre on the basis of written lest held on 29ih October, 1972 as well as subsequent interview but he could not come within the required merit vis-a-vis the number ot de- clared vacancies. In view of loregoing, nuJi- ing him through another recruitment has been waived.

(iv) After the agreement Shri U. C. Bhardwaj nor the Union on his behalf will raise any industrial dispute of any nature at any forum."

It was denied that the case of Shri Urnesh Chand Bhardwaj is similar to the case of Mr. Radheshyam Sharma. It was stated that Shri Radheshyam Sharma was appointed vide the Court's Order while Shri Bhardwaj entered in the Bank's service vide settle- ment. The judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey- shyam's case is not the judgment in rein. The settle- ment being binding the Union is estopped to make the said claim.

On behalf of the petitioner the order of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1337/98 Radheshyam Sharma versus State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, dated 23rd April, 1998 was filed. On behalf of the Respondent minutes of the settlement arrived between manage- ment and the Union before ALC were filed. Both the parties admitted these documents and they did not put any other evidence.

Arguments on behalf of representative of the peti- tioner and learned counsel of respondent were heard.

The only point for determination is to whether Shri Umesh Bhardwaj is entitled to the benefit of seniority and other notional benefit's w.e.f. 15-2-72 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Radhe- shyam Sharma V/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The order dated 23-4-98 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1337/1998 Radheshyam Sharma V/s. General Manager, SBBJ is being reproduced below :-—

"Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the appel- lant was although selected had nol been appointed by the respondent bank for which the appellant had to institute the suit. The suit was decreed iri favour of the appellant. Interim stay was granted by the Trial Court and also by the lower appellate court on an understanding that in the event of appel- lant's success in the proceedings, the arrears of salary should be paid to the appellant. Upto the High Court, the appellant has suc- ceeded so far right to be appointment ih concerned. The appellant feels aggrieved, as the High Court has only directed for the appointment of the appellant from 1st January, 1986 and not with effect from the date when others were appointed on the basis of the selection in 1974. As it appears to us that the appellant was entitled to be appointed in 1974, we allow this appeal and direct that the appellant will be deemed to have been appointed in 1974 when the apr peJJanl had been selected. In view of such appointment whh effect from 1974, thp seniority of the appellant will have to be reckoned and all benefits flowing from siich notional appointments will have to be given to him. But so far as back wages are cour ccrned, we are not inclined to allow the same. We, however, award a cost of Rs. 50,000 in favour of the appellant in this appeal. The said amount ot Rs. 50,606 should be paid to the appellant within three months from today. The appeal is accord- ingly disposed of,"

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contend- ed that the case of Mr. Umesh Chand Bhardwaj being similar to the case of Radheshyam, he is entitled to the same benefits, which were granted by the Apex Court in the Radheshyam's ease cited above. His contention is that the decision of the Apex Court is binding on all subordinate courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In support of his con- tention he has cited the following authorities :—

!. AIR 1998 (SC) 1353 Anil Kpraar Neotia Vs. Union of India.

2. AIR 1985 S.C. 621 M / s. Shenoy and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore.

3. (1983) 4 SCC 645 Deena Vs. Union of India.

4. (1990) 4 SCC 207 Krishana Kumar Vs.

Union of India.

On the other hand the learned counsel lor the res- pondent has contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Radheshyam's case is not the judgment in rem and is limited to the above case only. He has further contended that the dispute between the appel- lant and the Bank was settled before the conciliation officer long back vide memorandum of settlement dt. 8-10-87 in compliance ol which Mr. Umesh Chand Bhardwaj was given appointment in the Bank. As per the condition laid down in the settleipent the Union is estopped from raising the dispute.

There is no dispute (hat under article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Apex Court is binding on all courts in India. In the case reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 1353 Anil Kumar Neotia Vs. Union of India in which the case reported in AIR 1963 SC 151 was referred in which it was held that the binding effect of a decision docs not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided. In case reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 621 M/s. Shenoy and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Offi- cer, Bangalore it was held that Supreme Court's deci- sion is binding on all persons though they were not parties to appeal. It was so held in cases where nume- rous petitions were disposed off by common judgment and only one appeal was filed. It was observed that the parties to the common judgment could very well have and should have intervened and could have re- quested the Court to hear them also. They cannot bo6146 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTTKA 5, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication

Sd.| Illegible,

Presiding Officer heard to say that the decision was taken by the Supreme Court behind their back. In case reported in (1983) 4 SCC 645 Deena Vs. Union of India it was held that the ratio of case can be extended to other identical situation, factual and legal but not mecha- nically disregarding the rational oi that case. In case reported in (.1990) 4 SCC 2 0/ Krishana Kumar Vs. Union of India it has been held that when the Court once laid down the principle of law as applicable to certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and applied it to all future cases where facts are sub- stantially the same. It is thus the principle of law. which is binding.

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2001

S.O. 2918.—Hi pursuance of Section 17 of tho Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra] Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 27-9-2001.

[F. No. L-20012!136|2001-IR(C-I)] S, 3. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNUXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U|S, 1 0 ( J ) ( d ) ( 2 A) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 292 of 2000

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of

M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

Whether a case is identical to another is a question of fact. There is no dispute that Shri Umesh Chandra Bhardwuj appeared in the test held on 29-7-72 by the Bank for regular appointment and was declared successful and was not given appointment in the cle- rical cadre like Radhcshyam who also appeared in the test and was not given appointment. But Radhcshyam filed the Civil Suit in Court of Munsif, Jaipur West lor declaration that he was entitled to the post of clerical cadre. He also filed application for temporary injunction on which interim relief was granted by the Trial Court and also by the Lower Court Appellate on an undei taking that in the event of appellant's success in the proceedings the arrears of salary should be paid to him (Radheshyam). Upto the High Court the appellant succeeded so far as the right of appoint- ment was concerned. The appellant however lelt ag- grieved against the decision of the High Court by which the appointment was directed from 1st January, 1986 and not w.e.f. the date which others were ap- pointed on the basis of selection of 1974. The Apex Court found the applicant to be entitled for appoint- ment from J974 and, therefore, the order dt. 23-4-98 reproduced above was passed and the benefit of senio- rity and all benefits from such notional appointment were allowed to him. The above order was passed by the Apex Court after adjudication of the right to appointment of Mr. Radheshyam. No such adjudica- tion has taken place in case of Mr. Umesh Chandra Bhardwaj. Supposing Shri Umesh Chandra Bhardwaj might have filed a suit for seeking relief of appoint- ment from the year 1974 after the period of limitation and the suit might have been dismissed on this ground, could he claim the relief on the basis of decision of the Apex Court in RadheshyanVs ease ? In my view he could not. The facts of the petitioner's case there- fore, are not identical to the .facts of the case of Radheshyam. Moreover the dispute between the peti- tioner and the Bank was settled long back in 1987 by memorandum of settlement before settlement officer on the basis of which he was given appointment. The settlement has the binding force under Section 18 of the Act, 1947 and the petitioner has already derived the benefit of the settlement, he is. therefore, estopped from raising the dispute.

For the Employers.—Shri N. C. Mallik, Advo- cate.

For the Woikman.—Shri N. G. Arun, Organis- ing Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC).

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, the 21st Setrtember. 2001.

In view of the above discussion the action of the management of the Bank for not giving seniority and other notional benefit to Shri Umesh Chandra Bhard- waj w.c.f. 15-4-72 cannot be said to be unjustified and Shri Umesh Chandra Bhardwaj is not entitled to any relief.

AWARD

liberty to transfer the concerned workman to other Area on his such reinstatement as duly agreed to by the concerned workman in his representation dated 17-3-2001, made annexure-I to ihis application.

By Older No. L-200I2J I36|2OOG-IR(C-I) dated, the 27th September, 2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following d;sputc for adjudication to this Tribunal :

It is therefore accordingly prayed that in the rendition of an award to the above effect with the consent of the parties the refe- rence case may kindly be disposed of.

And for this act of kindness the parties in jointness shall ever pray.

Sd. - '"Whether the action of the management of Mines Rescue Station Dht

Superintendant, Mines Rescue State Dhansar, Dhanbad. Part of the award-

Sd.|-

Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum-l.abour Court (No. I I ), Dhanbad 2. A memorandum of selUunent is filed to-day (21-9-2001) duly signed by the representative of the sponsoring union and the representative of the management. I have gone through the terms of the settlement. Jn my opinion the settlement is fair and proper which has already been accepted by the parties.

3. Accordingly, the award is made in terms of the

settlement which shall form part of the award.

S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Officer.

BEFORE THE C. G. T. T. NO. I AT DHANBAD

Ref. Case No. 292j2000

Arising out of Order No. L-20012|136|2000- IRfC-I), dated 27-9-2000 of the Appro- priate 'Government.

Employer in relation to Mines Rescue Station

of Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Versus

Their Workmen.

New Delhi, the 28th September, 2001 Joint submission on behalf of the Parties to the reference case for making of a consented awarj and thereby to dispose of the refe- rence case.

The humble petition on behalf of the parties to

the reference case above-named.

Most respectfully shcwelh :—

S.O. 2919.—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-I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL t:nd their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-9-2001.

[F. No. L-2OOI2|544[98-IR(C-I)|

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE • ( ]) That subsequent to the making of the refe- rence by the Appropriate Government to this Ld. Tribunal, of the industrial dispute for adjudication, a settlement lias reached in between the management and the workman in respect of the dispute conse- quent to the approach in writing made by the con- cerned workman before the management by repre- sentation dated 17-3-2001.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference UjS. I O ( l ) ( d ) ( 2 A) of A copy of the said representation of the con- cerned workman JS annexed here to and marked Annexure-l to this application.

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 84 cf 1999.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

AND

(2) That the management alter careful examina- tion of the said representation of the concerned work- man has agreed to reinstate the concerned workman without payment of any back wages for the period the workman remained idle in vi^w of dismissal from the services of the Company with effeet from 28-1-1999.

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

(3) That however the workman will be given con- tinuity in service and management shall have the

Shri S. H, Kazmi, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

Central Government on 27-9-2001.

For the Eniplcyers.^None.

[F. No. L-30O12jl54|98-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

For the Workman.—Shri N, C. Arun, Organis- ing Secretary, Rashtnya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad.

STATE : Jl^rkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal. Dated, the 20th September, 2001.

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/544/98-CT dated J 7-5-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry oi Labour has, in exercise of ihe powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section ( I) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, J947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

2. To-day (20-9,-2001) Shri N. G. Arun, Orga- nising Secretary, Rashtriya Collier> Mazdoor Sangh, appearing on behalf of the concerned workman, Shri Umesh Kumar Singh, files a petition stating therein that (hey do not want to contest the present indus- trial dispute, Shri Singh also prays before this Tribunal to withdraw the ease.

3, In view of ihe above prayer of Shri N. G. Arun, Organising Secretary of the sponsoring union, I render a 'No Dispute' Award in the present Indus- trial dispute.

S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Officer

New DeJhi, the 28th September, 2001

S.O. 2920.—Tn pursuance- of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (K of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes, the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation io the mnn i'vment of Oil India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the6149 New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001

S.O. 2921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railw.vy, Ajmer and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-41012/29/2000-lR(B-I)] A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer6150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [FART I I- S E C. 3(ii)] 6151- 3250 GII20O1--8.

Reference No. L-41O12|67|9O-IR(DU) dt. 11-9-91 Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Kota,

. .Applicant Union

V|s

. .Non-Applicant.

The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota. ATTENDANCE:—

For the Applicant Union : Shri A. D. Grov'er, Repre-

sentative.

For the Non-Applicant : Shri Shyam Gupta,

advocate.

Date of Award : 29-8-2001.

AWARD

The following dispute was referred by the Central Government to Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi for adjudication vide order mentioned above under clause (d¹) of Sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ths Act, 1947).

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western railway, Kotti in termina- ting tihe services of Shri Gautam S/o Shri Kandul Gungman under PWI (N,)Kota w.'e.f. 21-4-83 is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and and from what date?"

and never reported for duty thereafter and, there- fore, the question of retrenchment doesn't arise and provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947 are not aLtracted.

The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply in which he denied that he left the services on his own accord.

On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri O. P. Tyagi, Chisf Clerk in the oflicc of AEN (N), Kota was filed. The learned representative of the applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. Copies of certain documents were also filed but the same have not been referred in ihe statement. On behalf of the applicant no evidence was produced.

Heard the arguments of tin? representative of the applicant and the learned advocate 01 the non- applicant.

It has not been denied reply to the claim that the applicant had completed 24u nays service in the year preccaing 10 ihe ame 01 sieged lermuiai^n of iiia ser- vices i.e. 21-4-83. It was admitted in ihe reply to the claim that the applicant was engaged w.e.t. 4-8-81. It was stated he did not report tor duty after 16-4-83. In allidaivit also Shri O. P. Tyagi has not stated that the applicant had not completed¹ 240 days service in the year preceding to 21-4-83. It is thus proved that the applicant bad completed 240 days service in the year preceding to tlie date of alleged termination dt. 21-4-83.

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001 S.O. 2923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1917 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government indusinul Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betveenthe employers in relation to the management of S. E. Railway and their workman, which was received' by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-41O12/132/98~IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B, G. Saxena, Preiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT/57/2000

The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E. Railway.

AND

Shri Hari Bihari.

AWARD

His appeal was dismissed on 12-2-98. It is men- tioned tnat he was habitual tor remaining- absent, ihe affidavit was filed by llari Bihari on 14-6-2000. He was cross examined on 25-8-2000.

Iri his affidavit ihc has mentioned that he was not considered for sick leave and no wages were paid to him. In crosi examination the workman, stated that he did not receive any letter dt. 11-4-97 i.e. show cause notice. He was further cross examined on 8-11-2000 In cross examination he admitted that due to illness he had not amended' the office. He did not mention any where that for how many days he remained absent due to illness. No Medical Certificate has been filed by him. He admitted that the Chargesbcet was given to him end hci alsc attended the De- partmental Enquiry.

The management has submitted Enquiry Report. It is mentioned that he remained' absent from duty 23-10-95 to 14-3-96 without any information. He did not submit any Medical Certificate of illness before the Enquiry Officer, The Chargesbect was issued to him on 28-6-96. The enquiry started from 3-4-97. The workman did not submit any reply to the Charge- sheet. He has admi ted th,; charge framed against him. The Enquiry Officer has mentioned that he absented from duty unauthon.^dly from 23-10-95 io 14-3-96 is proved beyond doubts against the workman.

The order dated 27)28-5-98 shows that the Divi- sional Mechanical Engineer, O. S. Sen Gupta! has passed the order for his removal from service. The workman was alleged to have committed violation of Rule No. 2.08 and 3(1) which are concerned for maintaining integrity and discipline in the Depart- mental Rules of S.E. Railway. The charge against the workman regarding his misconduct was proved.

On 23-9-97 the appellate authority confirmed the punishment for removal from service. Vide order dated 4-2-98 ADRM, Nagpur dismissed the appeal. From the above evidence on record it is therefore clear that the workman did not explain any satisfactory reason for his unauthorised absence from 23-10-95 to 14-3-96. In the ftbove circumstances there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

This Court has' the jurisdiction to decide the refe- rence, the domestic enquiry was conducted accor- dingly to the principles of Natural Justice.

The findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be con- sidered¹ perverse.

The action of the management of DRM, S.E. Railway, Nagpur in terminating the services of Hari Bihari, workman vide Older dated 27J28-5-98 is legal and justified.

ORDER

The action of tlhe management of DRM, S.E. Railway, Nagpur in terminating the services of Hari Biheri. Safaiwala vide dated 27/28-5-98 is legal and justified.

The workman is not entitled to any other relief.

Ths reference is answered accordingly.

Da(e : 3-9-01.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001 S.O. 2924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heicby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of Western Railway, Kota and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-41012/149/89-IR(DU)(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGTT 68/2000

Reference No. L-41012/149/894R(DU) dt. 3-8-90 Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,

Kota.

.. . Applicant Union,

V/s.

The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway,

Kottt.

. . .Non-applicant.

ATTENDANCE :

For the Applicant Union : Shri A. D. Grover, Representative.

For the Non-applicant : Shri Shyam Gupta, Advocate.

Date of Award : 30-08-2001.

AWARD

The following dispute was referred by the Central Government to Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi for adjudication vide order, mentioned above under clause (d) Sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Ac^, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947).

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action, of the D.R.M., Western Railway, Kota is justified inflicting the6155 punishment on Shri A. D. Orovcr, HTTE, Kota, by way of withholding the increment without cumulative effect lor a period of ft months from 1-1-89 to 1-6-89? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

Latei on the proceedings in the above case were withdrawn vide order No. L-410l2/149/89-lR(B-I) duied 28-8-2000 and transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

request however WM not acceded to and. he was again asked to submit his defence vide latter dated 8-6-88 within 7 days. In response to the above letter dated 8-6-88 he again requested for the detailed en- quiry to prove his innocence but instead of acceding to his request the disciplinary authority issued the order of penalty of stoppage of 6 increments without tuture effect. No reasons were given for not conduct- ing detailed cnquiiy. The action of disciplinary autho- rity, therefore, tantamounts to denial ot principles of natural justice arid without application of mind. Against the order of penalty he tiled an .appeal to the appellate authority vide application dated 16-11-88 but the same was rejected. It was prayed that the order dated 13-8-88 of the disciplinary authority and order dated 13-2-89 of the appellate authority may be quash- ed and he should paid all his arrears. Along with statement of claim copies of the documents annexures "A" to "J" were also filed.

On behalf of the non-applicant it was admitted that Shri A. D. Grovur (hereinafter referred qs the delin- quent) was on duty on 10^7-87 in sleeper coach No. 7415 of Dehradoon Express. As regards entry of un- authorized passengers in the above coach it was stated that the facts are within the specific knowledge of the delinquent. It was however stated that it is the duty of conductor on duty not to allow unauhorized pas- sengers in the coach. The applicant could have bolted the door from both sides and stood on the door on other side to restrict authorized passengers entering the each. It was alse admitted that Shri Rakesh Garg was travelling on Berth No, 72 and a sum of Rs. 24 was charged from an unauthorized passenger. It wa? also admitted that memo to SHO, Qangapurcity was also given. It was not admitted that Shri Rakesh Garg provocated the unauthorised person not to pay the railway dues. It was denied that Shri Rakesh Garg lodged the false complaint against the delinquent and the documents called for by the delinquent were not supplied to him. It was stated that copies of the com- plaint and Rcservalion Chart of Coach No. 7415 were supplied to him. It was stated that withdrawal of the complaint by Shri Rakesh Garg on tender of opology by ine delinquent does not absolve him of misconduct. It was further stated that it was within the compe- tence of the administration to take disciplinary action against the delinquent. In the case of minor penalty holding of contorted enquiry, examination of witness- es, supply of documents was not necessary as the delinquent had not said pny thing in defence for which opportunity was given to him vide letter dated 8*6-88 to submit his defence within 7 days. There is no provision also for holding detailed enquiry in the case of minor penalty. All reasonable facilities were afforded to the delinquent to defend himself before imposing the minor penalty and the appellate authority had gone through the record carefully before passing the order.

The delinquent filed rejoinder to the reply reiterat-

ing the facts stated in the statement of claim.

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was on duty in sleeper coach No. 7415 by 19 Dn. nov, 9019 Dn. Dehradoon Fxpress on 10-7-8.7 between Kota to New Delhi. On arrival of the train at Sawaimadhopur Station, some un-authorized passen- gers entered in sleeper coach No. 7415 from the door near berth Nos. 71 and 72. He got vacated the sleeper coach and thereafter the same passengers entered in the sleeper coach No. 7415 from the door near berth Nos. 7 and 8. He again got vacated the sleeper coach from that side also but one of them again entered in sleeper coach No. 7415 from the door near" berth Nos. 71 and 72. The said passenger was under m- toxicution and failed to show his ticket on demand He requested him to pay Rs. 24 as railway dues from Kota to Gangapurcity. One Shri Rakesh Garg who was travelling on berth No. 72 intervened and p"rb vocated him not to pay the railway dues. After a great persuation by him he paid Rs. 24 as railway dues for which Excess Fare Ticket for Rs. 24 was issued to him and a memo was given to S.H.O., G.R.J\P Gangapurchy for uncalled for interference in dealing with unauthorized and without ticket passengers for Shri Rakesh G.irg \^ho was travelling on berth No. 72, But on the persuation of Government Railway Police Shri Rakesh Garg tendered apology and the matter was subsided there and then at Gangapurcity on 10-7-90 by intervention of G.R.P. staff. Shri Rakesh Garg lodged a false and fabricated complaint against him on which he requested for holding a confronted enquiry and t.uxjpty of documents vide his application dated 23-11-87 and 11-12-87 but the documents were not supplied to him and the confronted enquiry was fixed for 15-12-87. During the course of confronled enquiry conducted on 15-12-87, he asked to cross examine the complainant, but he showed his inability without supply of the documents as requested vide his applications dateJ 23-11-87 and 11-12-87. Not only this but he aLo requested vide his applications dated 24-1-88 to arrange attendance of his witnesses during the course of confronted enquiry, but the non- applicants failed to auanga attendance of his witnesses during the course of confronted enquiry and ultimately the complainant withdrew his unfounded and false complaint during the course of confronted enquiry on 4-2-88. It was further stated that on withdrawal of the complaint the matter should have been dropped but the minor penalty charge sheet was issued to him. On the receipt of the charge sheet he submitted re- presentation to Sr. D.C.S., Kota vide his application dated 3-4-88 requesting for detailed enquiry. In view of the Railway Board's letter dated 11-2-86 in which it has been laid down that even in case of minor penalty cases reasonable opportunity in relation to principles of natural justice should not be denied. His

In support of the claim the delinquent filed his own affidavit and referred and relied uppa, the¹ copy of memo of charge sheet marked E)t*C., copy of defence statement marked Ex*H, copy of order dtfted 13-'8-886136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA r OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fH)l marked Ex-K. Copy of memo dated 16-11-88 marked Ex-L and copy of instructions of Railway Board marked Ex-M. Copies of letter dated 8-6-88 and 15-6-88 were also referred in affidavit. The learned counsel for non-applicant was. given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri Abdul Salam was filed. In support of documentary evidence copy of com- plaint dated 13-7-87 marked M-l, copies of letters dated 8-10-87, 15-10-87, 6-11-87, 23-11-87 marked M-2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively, copy of statement of delinquent showing regrets marked M-6 and copy of the order dated 30-12-88 marked M-7 were filed.

Heard arguments for the learned representative of the applicant and learned counsel for the non-applicant and perused the record.

The learned representative of the applicant has raised only one contention regarding the validity of the order of punishment. His contention is that as per the Railway Board's letter dated 11-2-86 although in cases of minor penalty the disciplinary authority had the right to reject the request for holding detailed enquiry, the disciplinary authority must have indicated its decision in writing for doing so. In this connection he has drawn attention to the letter of the Railway Board 11-2-86 and copy of the memorandum of DOPT dated 28-10-85 which are reproduced as under:—

"Copy of Railway Board's letter No. E (D&A)86 RS 6-3 dt. 11-2-1986 address to the Gene- ral Manager, all Indian Railways and others.

Subject:—Rule 11(1) of Railway Servant (Discipli- nary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 holding of inquiry in specific circumstances—Recom- mendations of Committee of National Coun- cil (JCM).

A copy of the Department of Personnel and Train- ing Office Memorandum No. 11012/18/85-Estt. (A) dated 28-10-85 on the above subject is enclosed. The contents of the same may be brought to the notice of all concerned for compliance. Rules 16(1) and 16(1-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 mentioned therein correspond to Rules 11(1). and Rules 11(2), respectively, of the R.S. (D&A) Rules, 1968 regard- ing procedure for imposition of Minor Penalties.

Receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged.

Sd./- V. K. RAO), Deputy Director (D&A), Railway Board.

Extract from Department of Personnel and Training Off. Memorandum No. 11012/18/85-Estt. (A) dated 28th October, 1985

Subject :—Rule 16(1) holding of inquiry in specific Circumstances—Recommendations of Com- mittee of National Council (JCM).

The undersigned is directed to say that the staff >ide of committee of the National Council (JCM) set up to consider revision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and suggested that Rule 16(1) should be amended so as to provide for holding an inquiry for imposing of minor penalty, if the accused employee requested for such an inquiry.

The above suggestions has been gives a detailed consideration. Ruie 16(I-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed in the circumstances indicated therein. In other cases, where a minor penalty is to be imposed, Rule 16(1) ibid leaves it to the discretion of disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. The implication of this rule is that on receipt of re- presentation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct ur misbehaviour communi- cated to him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed in- quiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In a case where a delinquent Gov- ernment servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request the solely on the ground that an inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that notwithstanding the points urged by the Govern- ment servant, the disciplinary authority could, after due consideration come to the conclusion that an in- quiry is not necessary, it should say so in writing indication its reasons, instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry summarily without any indication that it has applied its mind to the request as such an action could be construed as denial of natural justice.

Ministry of Agriculture etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the, notice of all disciplinary authorities under their control.

Hindi version will follow.

Sd./-

(A. Jayaraman), Director (E) On the other hand the learned counsel for the non- applicant has contended that no violation of any Rule of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal), 1968 (hereinafter referred as the Rules. 1968) has been made.

The delinquent was served with the memorandum of charges dated 21-3-88 along with statement of alle- gations which is reproduced as under :—

Standard Form of Memorandum of Charge for impos- ing Minor Penalties [Rule 11 of the Railway Sen-ants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Ruiles 1968] No. E/T/308/ Name of the Railway DRM's 8/169/ Administration Office

Place of issue Kota Dated 21-3-88 615T MEMORANDUM

charge sheet within 7 days under threat of ex parte decision. On 15-6-88 he again reiterated his earlier re- quet for detailed enquiry. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment vide letter Ex-K dated 13-10-88. The appeal marked Ex-C against the order of impos- ing the penalty was also rejected arbitrarily vide order dated 13-2-89.

Shri A. D. Grover (Designation Hd.TTE (office in which working) DCTI-Kota is hereby informed that the undersigned proposes to take action against him under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Disci- plinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968. A statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken as mentioned above, is enclosed.

Shri Abdul Salam on behalf of non-applicant has stated that Shri Rakesh Garg had lodged a complaint on 13-7-87 to the General Manager marked M-l the contents of which are reproduced as under :—

Shri A. D. Grover is hereby given an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. The representation, if any, should be submitted to the undersigned within ten days of receipt of this Memorandum.

If Shri A. D. Grover fails to submit his representa- tion, within the period specified in para 2, it will be presumed that he has no representation to make and orders will be liable to be passed against Shri . . . .exparte.

The receipt of this Memorandum should be acknow-

ledged by Shri A. D, Grover. End : or reverse :

Sd./-

K. C. Singh, Sr. DCS., Kota Name and Designation of the Competent Authority

To,

Shri A. D. Grover, Hd.TTE, (Name, Designation and office of the railway servant), through DCTI-Kota

SF ll(C549/8/65)

Charges

That the said Shri A. D. Grover while functioning as Incharge TTE S/C No. 7415 by 19 Dn. of 10-7-87 Ex Kota to NDLS is changed with incivility thereby violated Rules 3(iii) of the Services Conduct Rules, 1968.

Allegation

That the said Shri A. D. Grover, TTE, Kota while functioning a-= Tncharge S/C No. 7415 by 19 Dn of 10-7-87 Ex KTT-NDLS used abusive and unparlia- mentary language with Shri Rakesh Garg travelling on berth No. 72 of that coach.

He further gave him police threats and issued " memo to GRP at GGC for which Shri Garg has to tender apology under compulsion and threatening of detraining at GGC.

The above action on the part of above named tanta- mount to incivility and action in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant.

The delinquent in his statement has stated that he submitted defence statement on 3-4-88 which is mark- ed Ex-H in which it has been stated that a confronted enquiry has been conducted on the complaint launch- ed by Shri Rakesh Garg and the case has been fina- lised. The complainant withdrew the complaint be- cause he has lodged false and fabricated complaint. In spite of it he may be given an opportunity of a detailed enquiry in terms of the amendments in the Rules, 1968 as circulated in Railway Board's letter dated 11-2-86. He has further stated that his request for detailed enquiry was not acceded and be was ask- ed vide letter dated 8-6-88 to submit the reply of the6m* THE GAZETTE OF B8PIA :^QCTQBSR 27 2QWKABTTKA 5, 1923 [FART J I ^ S E C. MiYI The delinquent was directed to pee "the Chief Ticket Inspector, HQ with relevant record on dated 8-10-87 marked M-2 followed by reminder ^and. marked Ex. M-3 and M-4. The delinquent dernbtided confronted enquiry into the matter vide lettef marked M-5. Dur- ing the course of enquiry on 4-2-88 the delinquent expressed regret for the incident of dated 10-7-87 vide Statement marked M-6 which is being reproduced hereunder :—

Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the delinquent and charge sheet for minor penalty was issued to him. The delinquent did not submit his defence on merits and demanded a con- fronted enquiry. As the confronted enquiry was not necessary the delinquent asked to submit his defence within 7 days. The delinquent could not submit his defence hence penalty was imposed upon him which was commun'cated to him vide letter dated 13-10-88. The delinquent preferred appeal against the order of penalty, which was duly considered by the DRM who passed detailed order thereon on dated 30-12-88 the copy of which is marked Ex. M-7.

It may be stated that the Rules, 1968 have been made by the President in exercise of the powers con- ferred upon him undsr Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule-11 of the Rules, 1968 which prescribes the procedure for imposition of minor penalties leaves it to the discretion of the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry under sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1968 or not. There is no dispute that the Railway Board has issued instructions for com- pliance of the circular dated 28-10-85 issued by the DOPT which has been reproduced above -which states that when the disciplinary authority is in the opinion that the enquiry is not necessary it should say so in writing. There is no dispute that the reasons were not given in writing for not holding the detailed enquiry. The above circular or the instructions of the Board cannot over ride Rule 11 of the Rules, 1968 made under the Constitution of India. The purpose for indi- cating the reasons for not holding the detailed enquiry is to ensure that the disciplinary authority has applied its mind to the request. It has been held in AIR 1996 SC 1669 State Bank of Patiala and other V/s. S. K. Sharma that principles of natural justice cannot be reduced to hard and fast rule. Their application de- pends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case detailed enquiry on the complaint of Shri Rakesh Garg had already taken place. Two opportunities were given to the delinquent to make his submission tm merits ot the charges levelled against him. The delinquent dfd riot makfc day representation 615?

AWARD

on merits of the charges. He has also expressed regrets for the incident dated 10-7-87. In view of these cir- cumstances simply because the reasons for not holding the detailed enquiry in writing were not given, it can- not be held that principles of natural justice have been violated.

The Central Government Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-410i2!207|2000-IR(B-I) dated 29-12-2000 on the following schedule.

In view of the above discussion the action of the DRM. W.R.. Kota in inflicting the punishment on deliiKMicnt of withholding increments for 6 months without cumulative effect is held to be justified and the deriiqurnr is not entitled to any relief.

SCHEDULE

Cop: :s if the award may be sent to Central Govern- ment ua.Ier Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd.J- ILLEGIBLE, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Central Railway through the Divisional Railway Manager (Cater- ing Unit). Nagpur in dismissing Smt. Rampyari Narayan Sahu, Nagpur, w.e.f. 1999 is justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled ?"

This reference was received in this Court in January. 2001 and notice was issued to the workman Rampyari Narayan Sahu for sub- mitting statement of claim on 23-02-01.

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001

On 23-02-01 application was moved by the un'cn representative Shri G. M. Sharma that another date be given to him for filing the statement of claim for the workman. The ca^e was adjourned to 16-03-01. On 16-03-01 Advocate Shri Chandra Shekhar V. Anwane submitted VakaJa"nama for filing statement of ckim from the side of the workman. The case was adjourned to 08-05-01.

On this date 8-5-2001 again the applicat;on was moved by Sh. R. B. Khan, Advocate for seeking adjournment to fib statement of claim.

S.O. 2925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Naspur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-^1012¹207;2000-TRrB-T)] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shrl B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGlTlO3|2OO1

The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway

AND

As the counsel did not submit the statement of claim from the side of the workman and filed only Vakalatnama, the case was adjourn- ed to 03-07-01 on payment of cost of Rs. 500 to b,e paid by the workman. After this date 06-08-01, 23-08-01 and 07-09-01 were fixed for filing the statement of claim by the work- man but neither the counsel for workman turned up to submit the statement of claim nor cost was paid by the workman. It is therefore clear that neither the union representative of the workman preferred to submit the statement of claim for the workman nor the above men tinned Advocates filed any statement of claim for the workman. In the above circum- stances during the last more than 6 months no statement of claim has been filed bv the workman.

SMT. Rampvari Naravan Sahu

3250 GII2001—9.

The counsel for the Central Railway, Shri Dhanagare is present lo represent the manage- ment.

As no statement of claim has been filed by the workman or union representative or the above advocatesi the reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.

ORDER

The reference is disposed of for want of prosecution as the workman Smt. Rampyari Narayan Sahu has not submitted any state- ment of claim during 6 months inspite oV knowing that the case is being fixed for hear- ing. Her union representative or the advocate also did not filed statement of chim for her. In these circumstances, no relief cannot be granted to the workman.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Sd-| Dated 07-09-01

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001 S.O. 2926.—[n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disoutcs Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-41012|208'2000-IR(B-D] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxcna, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT[04|200!

The Divisional Railway Manager

AND

SMT. Sonia Chaitram Sahu

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A.) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has inferred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. T.-41012|208!2000!IR(B-I) dated 29-12-2000 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Railway through the Divisional Railway Manager (Cater- ing Unit), Nagpur in dismissing Smt. Sonia Chaitram Sahu, Nagpur w.c.f. 1999 is justified ? If not what relief the said workman is entitled?"6161 reasons that the workman has been avoid- ing to submit the statement of claim, the re- i'erence is disposed of for want of prosecution.

ORDER

The workman Smt. Sonia Chaitram Sahu did not submit any statement of claim neither through her union representative, Shri G. M. Sharma or through her advocate Shri R. B. Khan during the last more than six months inspite of knowing that the case is fixed for hearing since 26-02-01. The re- ference is therefore disposed of for want of prosecution.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Date 07-09-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 3rd October. 2001

S.O. 2927.—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, Jaipur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-12OI2|549;98-TR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer6)0^ TTTE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTTKA 5, ]923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)] 6163 This is 1o ccitify list Mni /,;1 ck Kin PI Gi[U' son of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and residing at Mohalla Hazirka Alwor (Hazurika) was engaged on daily wage basis, in leave/casual vacancies of Messenger Ferrash/ Cash Collie/Water Boy/Guard Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has been washing as Canteen Boy/Water Boy/Sweeper etc., as per the particulars given hemunder ;—

(a) Wages paid per day

(b) Period of temporary service

(between 1-7-1975 to 14-8-1991) ;

Calendar Year

Sr. No.

No. of days Position in worked which worked

1987

23 4

0)

1988

77

(ii)

14

(iii) 1989

114

(iv) Total No of days

FOR STATE BANK. OF TND[A,

Date Branch Manager/Office Manager/Depart-

ment Head Arya Nagar Alwar

Annexurc-2

Name of the Branch ARYANAGRR, ALWAR CERTIFICATE OF TEMPORARY SERVICE

ON DAILY WAGE BASTS6164 THE GAZfeTTE OF INDTA : OtTOBEft 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [T-'ART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 6165 6166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KART1KA 5, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] STAFF: SUBORDINATE

ABSORPTION OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES/ DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES

We invite a reference to Ht\ad Circular Circular Memo PER[IR tl|91 dated the A-4-91, whereby all temporary employees who had worked in temporary capacity between 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 are to be given a chance for permanent absorption in the Bank's service in terms of Bipartite Agreement dated the 27-10-88 and 9-1-91. Accordingly, an advemse- meat has been released in Rajasthan Patrika having vast circulation in the State of Rajasthan on 1-5-91 inviting applications from such temporary employees. We have now been approached by State Bank ot Tndia Staff Association that services of large number of canteen boys Committee at branches are being utilised¹ ar. the branches for massengeria] work and we paid conveyance charges, This position is viewed by us with great disfavour and must be stopped forthwith under confirmation to us. In this connection, we wish to clarify that in case the services of such canteen boys have been utilised at the Branch either for messengerinl work or for outdoor duties which are normally performed by the Bank's permanent staff, they will also become elligi- ble under the above referred agreement. Please, therefore accept the applications for such canteen boy<; after verifying their records in terms of the instruc- tions contained in our above referred Circular Memorandum provided, they have comnktcd more than 30 days service as messenger

2. Please treat this at Most Urgent.

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001

S.O. 2928.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-10-2001.

[F. No. L-12012|504|98-TR(B.I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGPUR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 56 of 99

In the matter of dispute between

The Secretary,

Akhil Bhartiya Samast Bank Chaturth Shreni Karumchari Mahasangh, Sitanagar, Firozabad Road, Agra.

AND

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, First Area Sanjay Place, Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi vide its notification No. L-120T2 50498(IR)B-l dated 10-3-99 has referred the following dispute for adudication to this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Region T Agra vide its order dated 11-12-96 in not giving increment and promotion and not transfer to Sri Ram Din Tiwari in Agra Branch and not giving volun- tary retirement and not giving ser- vice to his son on compassionate ground ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. On 5-9-2001 when the case was taken up for hearing and recording evidence on 3250 GII200J—10.

behalf of the management, the authorised representative of the Union raising the present dispute on behalf of the concerned workman made an endorsement on the statement of claim to the effect that the present claim is not pressed. In view of his endorsement made on the claim, the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claim of the con- cerned Workman is liable to be dismissed as not pressed and concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the re- ference order.

3. Accordingly it is held that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the present reference. The re- ference is decided accordingly against the workman.

R. P. PANDRY, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2001

S.O. 2929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hen-bv pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute? between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Rninsthan Ltd. and tl>eir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-10-2001.

[F. No. L-l2O12'23l20O0-TRCB-T)l

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer6169 New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001 S.O. 2930.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 19-47), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-10-2001.

[F. No. L-12012|I22|98-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PENDEY PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 257 of 1999 In die matter of dispute between The Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Samnst Bank Chaturth Shreni Karamchari Mahasangh, Sitanagar Firozbad Road, Agra.

AND

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India- Regional Office, First Area Sanjay Place, Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour New Delhi vide its notification No. L-12012| 122198(IR)B-l dated 03-9-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Agra in stopping one incre- ment for two years vide order daied 19-11-87 in respect of Sri Surcnder Singh is legal and justifi- ed ? If not to what relief the work- man is entitled ?"

2. On 5-9-2001 when the case was taken up for hearing and recording evidence on behalf of the management, the authorised re- presentative of the Union raising the present dispute on behalf of the concerned workman made an endorsement on the statement ot claim to the effect that the present claim is not pressed. In view of his endorsement made on the claim, the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claim of the con- cerned workman is liable to be dismissed as not pressed and concerned workman is aot entitled to any relief in pursuance of the re- ference order.

3. Accordingly it is held that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pur- suance of the present reference. The reference is decided accordingly against the workman.

R. P. PANDEY. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001 S.O. 2931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government6170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cerned workman is liable to be dismissed as not pressed and concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the re- ference order.

Industrial TribunaljLabour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-10-2001.

[F. No. L-12012|505|98-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

3. Accordingly it is held that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pur- suance of the present reference. The reference is decided accordingly against the workman. R. P.-PANDEY, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 57 of 99

In the matter of dispute between

Akhil Bhartiya Samast Bank Chaturth Shreni Karamchari Mahasangh, The Secretary Office, Sitanagar, Firozabad Road, Agra.

New Delhi, the 5 th October, 2001 AND

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, First Area Sanjay Place, Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour

S.O- 2932.—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, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-10-2001.

[F. N. L-41012|248|97JR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer New Delhi vide its notification No. L-12012 505|98(IR)B-I dated 19-3-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :—

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 91 of 98

In the matter of dispute between "Whether the claim of Akhil Bhariiya Samast Bank Chaturtha Shreni Karamchari Mahasangh that Sri Bhagwan Singh s|o Amar Singh was a workman of the management of State Bank of India is legal and justified ? If so to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

Rajesh Kumar Singh, s|o Sri Gauri Shanker Singh, rjo Railway Quarter Sankhya 487, Tejaab Mill Colony, Uttar Railway. Kanpur.

AND

2. On 5-9-2001 when the case was taken up for hearing and recording evidence on behalf of the management, the authorised re- presentative of the Union raising the present dispute on behalf of the concerned workman made an endorsement on the statement of claim to the effect that the present claim is not pressed. In view of his endorsement made on the claim, the tribunal is left with no other Option but to hold that the claim of the con-

Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi vide its notification No. JL-41012 248|97-1R(B-I) dated 19-5-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :—

case. It has been alleged that entire action taken against the concerned workman is wholly illegal and malafide and is by way of victimiza- tion, and is against the principle of natural justice. On the basis of these allegations it has been alleged by the concerned workman that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

"Kya Mandal Rail Prabandhak, Uttar Railway, Sri Rajcsh Kumar Singh son of Sri Gaurt Shanker Singh Mandal Room Attendant ko dinank 1-12-93 se naukari se nishkasit karna nyayochit hai ? Yadi nahi to to sambandhit karmkar kis anutosh ka haqdar hai ?"

3. The management has filed its written statement in which it has denied the aver- ments made by the concerned workman in his statement of claim. It has been alleged that the workman remained on unauthorised absence hence the termination of service oL' the workman is fully justified. It has been alleged that the concerned workman was duly informed of the charge sheet- show cause notice and enquiry proceedings at his registered address at Kanpur. On the basis of these allegations it has been alleged that the claim of the concerned workman is liable to be rejected.

4. The workman has filed rejoinder in which he has reiterated the facts alleged in the statement of claim.

5. In this case after 1-9-2000 the manage- ment stopped appearing in the case hence the case proiceded exparte against the manage- ment.

6. The concerned workman filed 13 docu- ments in support of his case and has also filed his evidence on affidavit. In his evidence on alrldavit the concerned workman has proved his case and has also proved the documents marked Ext. W.I to W.I3.

2, in the statement of claim it has been alleged by the concerned workman that he was appointed on the post of Model Room Attendant and was continuously working under Principal Electric Training School. Northern Railway Fazalganj, Kanpur with effect from 19-1-82. It was been alleged that the post on which workman was working and nature of work was permanent and he was getting all benefits as were given to the per- manent employee. It has been alleged that the concerned workman originally belongs to State 6f Bihar. He received a telegram fiom his village regarding illness of his mother on 23-4-91. After taking earned leave for the period 24-4-91 to 4-5-91 the workman proceeded for his village. It has been alleged that as the condition of his mother was serious he extended his leave and submitted leave application through his colleague to the Train- ing School. It has been alleged that the con- cerned workman also fell ill due to strain received by him. It has been alleged that after being declared fit he appeared for duty on 23-4-94 before the Principal Electric Train- ing School alongwith medical fitness certifi- cate and requested for duty but he was denied and was handed over dismissal order dated 1-12-93 alongwith copy of enquiry report on 7-4-94. The concerned workman has denied having committed any misconduct. It has been alleged that the concerned workman made a written request to review the order of dismissal from service but what action was taken by the management was not made known to him. It has been further alleged in the claim statement that neither any charge sheet and nor any show cause notice was ever serv- ed on the concerned workman nor the manage- ment gave any information regarding discipli- nary action and nor he wns ever afforded any opportunity of being heard in the disciplinary

7. I have heard the authorised representa- tive for the concerned workman and have gone through the record of the case. The evidence of the concerned workman in this case goes uncontroverted hence 1 am inclined to believe the case of the concerned workman that his services were illegally dispensed with by the management of Northern Railway without adhering to principles of natural justice and without giving him any charge sheet and without giving him any opportunity to explain by serving copy of enquiry report on his be- fore passing the order of removal from sorv'ce. The order of removal from service was passed on the same day on which enquiry report was submitted. As such the termination of the services of the concerned workman with effect from 1-1?.-93 is bad in lnw and is liable to be set aside.

8. In view of above Considerations, I bold that the action of the management in termi- iting the services of the concerned workman **ilh, effect from 1-12-93 is illegal and un- justified and.the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the management with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

9. Reference is therefore answered accord-

ingly in favour of the concerned workman.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2001

S.O. 2933.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Geological Survey of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-10-2001,

[F. No. L-420l2/152/96-lR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer6173 6174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [FART TT—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 4th October, 2001

S.O. 2934.—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-cum-Labour Court.No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Military Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 4-10-2001.

[F. No. L-32(9)/86-Con-D-lT(B)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

Reference No. 129 of 1987

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Military Farm, Namkum, Ranchi and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri Shiv Shankar Yaclav, Authorised Representative.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Military Farm.

Hated, Dhanbad, the 19th September. 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Minis! ry of Labour, in e .e: -isr of the powers conferred on I hem under See- tic.! 'AH l)(d) of the i.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-32(9) /.Sfi-Con.D.II(B) dated 22-4-K7 '.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the aetion of the Management of Mili- tary Farm. Namkum, Ranchi in denying employment to Shri Basudeo Yadav, Farm Hand w.e.f. 15-10-85 and not paying full wages from 2-4-79 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. Tn course of hearing of the instant reference re- presentative for the management submitted that thev have already paid the arrears pay and allowances to the concerned workman for the period fV.im 2-4-79 to 31-8-94 and in support of his claim they have sub- mitted relevant papers duly signed by the Officer In- chargc. Military Farm, Namkum. The management also submitted a copy of the Wage Book for the month of October, 1994 relating to disbursement of arrear amount in question to the concerned workman. The concerned workman in course of hearing was not present, As a result the matter in issue was taken up ex-parte. Considering the relevant papers and also considering the submission of the learned Advocate for the management I find sufficient ground to hold that the arrears in question has already been paid to the concerned workman. As the arrears of wages has already been paid by the management, at this stage I consider that the concerned workman has no grie- vance relating to the dispute raised by him. Vide Order No. 16 dated 8-2-94 my Prcdeeessor-in-office clearly observed that as there was no dispute existed between the parties save and except the concerned workman should be pa¹'d his dues at the earliest pos- sible. T think when that pavment has already been made by the management it is needless to proceed with the further hearing of the instant case. In the result, no dispute existed between the parties. An Award is passed accordingly.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 3250 GII2001—11.

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2001 S.O. 2935.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Military Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 4-10-2001.

IF. No. L-32(10)/86-Con-T/D.II(B)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )fd) of the I.D. Acl, 1947

Reference No. 309 of 1987

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Military Farm, Namkum, Ranchi and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None. On behalf of Ihe employers : Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav. Authorised Representative.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Military Farm.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19lh September, 2001

AWARD

The Government of Tndia, 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-32(10)/8fi-Con.T/D 1TB dated, the 22nd December. 1987 :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Mili- tary Farm, Namkum, Ranchi in denying employment to Shri Adalat Sahu Farm Hand w.e.f. 15-10-85 and not paying full wages from 2-4-79 is justified? If not, what relief Ihe workman is entitled ?"

2Jn course of hearing of the instant reference re- presentative for the management submitted that they6176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Tn the matter of dispute between :—•

Sri Dinesh Kumar, C/o Sri B. D, Chaurasia, President UTUC UP Branch, 30/81, Rujamandi Agra.

AND

Executive Officer Cantonment Board, Mathura, U.P.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide its notification No, L-13012/7/98/l.R.(DU) dated 16-2-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this tribunal :—

"Whether the- action of Executive Officer of Cantonment Board, Mathura in terminatins: the services of Sri Dinesh Kumar is legal and justified 7 If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

have already paid the airear pay and allowances to the concerned workman for the period from 2-4-74 to 31-8-94 and in support of this claim they have submitted relevant papers duly signed by the Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Namkum. The management also submitted a copy of the Wage Book for the month of October, J994 relating to disbursement of arrear amount in question to the concerned workman. The concerned workman in course of hearing was not present. As a result the matter in issue was taken up exparte. Considering the relevant papers and also con- sidering the submission of the learned Advocate for the management I find sufficient ground to hold that the arrears in question has already been paid to the concerned workman. As the arrears of wages has al- ready been paid by the management, at this stage f consider that the concerned workman has no grievance relating to the dispute raised by him. Vide Order No. 16 dated 8-2-94 my Predecessor-in-office clearly ob- served that as there was no dispute existing between the parties save and except the concerned workman should be paid his dues at the earliest possible date. I think when that payment has already been made by the management it is needless to proceed with the further hearing of the instanL ease. In the result, no dispute existed between the parties. An Award is passed accordingly,

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 5th October, 20(11

2. The workman filed statement of claim with the allegations that he was appointed as Salaiwala on 9-12-93 in Cantonment Board Mnthura and served at that post up to 28-2-95 without any break at a monthly salary of Rs. 1795. He did not give any opportunity to the employer to complaint against his work and conduct. No charge sheet or show cause- notice was ever served on him. The services of the workman were terminated with eifect from 1-3-95 illegally without making compliance of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. The workman Wrote to the higher authorities on 5-4-95 and request- ed for taking him in the service but it was of no conse- quence. The workman moved application before the labour department of U.P. Government and when the conciliation failed the Government referred the mat- ter to U.P. Industrial Tribunal. Agra. The U.P. Indus- trial Tribunal, Agra- held that it harl no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal was competent to decide the dispute. Thereafter, the workman raised the dispute before ALCC and thereafter the Government (if India re- ferred this dispute to this tribunal vide notification dated 16-2-99 for decision. It 1ms been nlleaed that} the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages,

S.O 2936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between th; employers in relation to the management of Executive Officer, Cantonment Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-10-2001.

[F. No. L-nO12)7|98-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFI- CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVO- DAYA NAGAR, KANPUR

3. The management of Cantonment Board Mathura filed written statement with Ihn contention that the claim of the workman was barred by Limitation, hence it is liable to be rejccled on tr>i;; ground alone. It has been niieped that althnuffn the management had raised objection in the verv be^innine thai the Central Government was trm approoriale trovernment to refer the disputp to CCTT and the Stale Govern- ment had no jurisdiction in the matter but the wnrk- man did not pay heed to it and ultimately the indus- trial dispute whs referred to the State Industrial Tri- bunal Ae™, wh'ch di'^missed Ihe claim on thr uround that it had no iurisdiction f'> trv the ense. Ti has been alleged thru¹ the concerned workman uw aonointed vide order dated 9-12-93 on the pnst nf Snftiiwnb for a fiv'ed, peric>d up to 28-2-94 acc"rdiiia to nV ru1ps annlicable to the employees of Cnntonme-nt B^nrd. His aonomtme'nt was made in view of the riniract made between the Military Officers ;rn6177 ment Board. Thereafter the term of the concerned workman was extended irom i-j-94 fo 2H-2-yo by wniten order. The concerned workman was appointed temporarily ami had no right to hold the P=.SL. Attcr the term of appointment expired his services auw- matically came to an end. However one month's notice was also given to him before the expiry or the term of his appointment. It has been alleged that suiae post of Safaiwala was reduced by Military Adminis- tration in the year 1995-96 hence the services of the concerned workman was terminated for want of the post as the posts sanctioned earner were reduced by the Military by way of contract made between I he Military authorities and the Cantonment Boi'.rd for the year 1995-96. The salary of the concerned work- man up to 28-2-95 was paid. It has been pra'yed that there is no illegality in the action taken by the manage- ment of Cantonment Board Math lira. It has been alleged that the claim filed by the workman should be rejected.

4. The concerned workmn filed rejoinder in which it has been alleged that as notice for retrenchment or retrenchment compensa- tion as required under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, was not paid to the con- cerned workman on the date of termination of his service, hence the impugned order of termination is illegal being passed in violation (it Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The workman examined himself as W.W. 1 and filed documents Ext. W-l to W-4 in support of hi? case. The management examined Amol B. Jagtap as M.W.I and Salamat Khan as M.W.2 and filed docu- ments Ext. M-l to M-6 in support of its case.

workman stood terminated on 28-2-95 when the terms of his appointment came to an end.

7. It has been pleaded by the management of Can- tonment Board Mathura that some post of SafaiwaJa) were reduced by the military authorities in the annual contract made between the Military authorities and the Cantonment Board for engaging Safaiwala during the period 95-96 and there was nv> post left for the concerned Workman hence his services stood termi- nated after expiry of the term of his appointment and his tenure could not be extended. This fact has been proved by M.W.I Mr. Amol B. Jagtap M.W.I. The testimony of M.W.I on this point goes unccntrovert- ed. He has proved the same fact which was pleaded by the management in its written statement. Even in the rejoinder the concerned workman did not said that the post of Safaiwala were not reduced by the Mili- tary Authorities in the annual contract made for the year 1995-96 between the Cantonment Board and Military Authorities. I am therefore inclined 1o be- lieve the case of the management on the point that the posts of Safaiwala were reduced or abolished dur- ing year 1995-96 hence the concerned workman could not get extension of service or continuity of service with effect from 1-3-95 as his service- term was extended by the competent authority upto 28-2-95 and the appointing authority had no jurisdiction to extend the term of the service of the concerned work- man due to abolition or reduction of the posts of Safaiwala. I, therefore hold that termination of the service of the concerned workman does not appear to be arbitrary and illegal specially when there was no post on which he could be allowed to continue as Safaiwala after 1-3-95.

8. The authorised reprcse-nii'live for the workman has argued that as concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of termi- nation he was entitled to get protection of the provi- sions of Section 25F of the Act. He has further argued that admittedly no notice as required under Section 25F of the Act and no retrenchment compensation as required under the aforesaid section was given to the concerned vvoikman before the dale of termina- tion, the impugned order of termination being passed in violirtion of Section 25F of the Act is illegal and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the autho- rised representative for the management has argued that the case of the concerned workman is squarely covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act hence the termination of the service of the concerned workman does not come within the definition of retrenchment an.l the provisions nf Sec- tion 25F of the Act shall not apply to his case.

9. After going through the record of the case and the provisions of Section 2(oo)fbb) and Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, I find force in the conten- tion of the authorised representative for the manage- ment. Section 2foo) defines retrenchment. It has been provided under Section 2(oo) that retrenchment menus termination by the employer of the service of the 'workman for any reason what so ever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted bv way of disciplinary action, but docs not include—•

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching tho age of superannuation it Lhc contract of em- ployment between the employer and trie workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf.

[(bb) termination of the service ot the workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and ihe workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein ; or

(c) termination oi the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health;]

10. From the definition of retrenchment as given in Section 2(oo)(bb) it is clear that termination of the serviced of the workman us a result of non-renewal of contract of employment beiween the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry is not included in the definition of retrenchment. In tins case Dinesh Kumar was appointed vide order dated 9-12-93 by the executive officer up to 28-2-94 and his term was further extended for a period up to 28-2-95. On 28-2-95 the services of the concerned workman came to an end automatically as there was not any renewal of the contract of employment as no post of Safaiwnla' was available for his continuance in service. In these circumstances I hold that i he alleged termination of service of the concerned workman being covered by telause (bb) mentioned above did not tome within the definition of retrenchment as given under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with the retrench- ment of the workman from the service by the em- ployer. As the termination of the service of the con- cerned workman did not come within the definition given under section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Section 25F of the Acf did not apply in the case and the management was no! under any obligation to make complianec of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

11. The authorised representative for the workman has placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Couri passed on 13-2-81 in Malkhan Singh versus Union of India 1981 (42) FT,R 407 in Which it was laid down that termination of service of temporary rail- way servant by one month notice amounts to retrench- ment, The law laid down in this caste does not apply in this case because the definitior of retrenchment was amended in the year 1984 where bv clause (bb) has been added indicating that if the term of appoint- ment is not renewed by the employer or the service are terminated according to the terms of service that termination shall not amount Vn retrenchment. Thus the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court is of no help to the workman.

12. In view of above- considerations T do not find any illegality in the action taken bv the management of Cantonment Board in term in a tin? the services of the concerned workman with eflect from 1-3-95.

13. T, therefore, hold that the ; rtinn of the Exe- cutive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mothnra in termi- nating the services of Sri Dinesh Kiim.ir is Icnil and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in pursuance of reference made to this tribunal.

14. Reference is therefore, answered against Lhc concerned workman.

27-9-2001.

R. P. PANDhY, Presiding OJiicer New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001 S.O. 2937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publisher the award of tin; Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to (he management of Executive Officer, Can- tonment Board and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 5-10-2001.

IF. No. L-l?012|8[98-IR(DU)] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXljRF.

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAC.AR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 35 of 1999 In the matter of dispute between- Sri Madan Lai Balmiki Co Sri B. D. Chaurasia Presided UTUC UP Branch 30 81 Rajamandi Agra.

AND

Executive Officer Cantonment Board, Mathura, U P.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide its no!ideation No. L-l3012i8;9S|lR (DU) dated Hi-2'99 h.•.!•; referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation lo this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of Executive Officer of Cantonment "Board, M;ithura in terminat- ing the services of Sri Mudan Lai Balmiki6179 is legal and justified ? It not, to what relief tlie workman is entitled ?"

that the claim filed by the workman should be reject- ed.

4. The concerned workman filed rejoinder in which it has been alleged that as notice for retrenchment or retrenchment compensation as required under seel ion 25 F uf Indus!rial Disputes Act was not paid to the concerned workman on the date of termina- tion of hk servicj, hence the impugned order of ter- mination is illegal being passed in violation of section 25-F of (he Industrial Disputes A d, 1947.

5. The workman examined himself as W.W.I and filed documents Ext. W-l to W-4 in support of his case. The management examined Amol B Jagtap as M.W.I and Sulamat Khan as M.W.2 and filed docu- ments Ext. M.I to M.6 in support of its case.

2. The workman filed statement of claim with the allegation* that he was appointed as Safaiwala on 9-12-93 in Cantonment Board Matiiura and KJIVAI at that post upto 28-2-95 without any break at a monthly salary of Rs. 1795. He did not give any opportunity to the employer lo complaint against Ivs work and conduct. No charge sheet or show cause notice was ever served on bini. The services of the workman were terminated with effect Irom 1-3-95 illegally wilhout making compliance of provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. The work- man wrote to the higher authorities on 5-4-95 and requested for taking him in the service but it was of no consequence. The workman moved application before the labour tiepaitment of U.P. Government and when the conciliation failed the Government re- ferred the matter to U.P. Tndu.trial Tribunal Agra. The U.P. Industrial Tribunal, Agra held that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was competent to decide the dispute. Thereafter, the workman raised the dispute before ALC O and thereafter the Govern- ment nf India referred this dispute to this tribunal vide notification dnted 16-2-99 tor decision. Tt has been alleged that the workman is entitled to be re- instated in service with full back wages.

6. I have heard the i uthorised representatives for the parties anJ have gone through the record of the case. From the oral and documentary evidence available on the record :t js established beyond doubt that the concerned workman was appointed for the post of Safaiwala in Cantonment Board Mathura by the competent authority vide order dated 9-12-93 for the period up to 28-2-94. 1 he copy of that appoint- ment order is Exr.'M.3 on the record which has been admitted by the authorised representative for the workman. The order dated 11-4-94 Ext, M.4 pass- ed by the appointing authority is on the record which shows that the term of ihc appointment of the con- cerned workman was extended fr.oro 1-3-94 to 28-2-95, This extension was also made giving him temporary extension upto 28-2-95. These facts have not been denied by the concerned workman in his evidence on record. It is also admitted case of the parties that services of the concerned workman came to an end on 2S-2-95. The record also shows that notice dated 28-1-95 marked Ext. M.-5 was issued to the concerned workman in which it was clearly mentioned that the concerned workman was initially appointed vide appointment letter dated 9-12-93 for a period of two months 22 days up to 28-2-95 and term of his appointment was extended upto 28-2-95 vide office order dated 11-4-94. It was also nunl'oncd in the notice thai the service of the concerned workman ^hall stand tcrnu'nated ac- cording to the ciders mentioned above. Thus the services of the concerned workman stood terminated on 28-2-95 when the terms of hi.-, appointment came to an end,

7. It lias been pleaded by the management of Cuntonme'it Board Malhura thru some post of Safai- wala wer* reduced by the military authorises in the annual contract made between the Military autho- rilies and the Cantonmenf Board for engaging Safai- wala during the period 95-96 ind there was no post left For the concerned workman hence his services stood terminated after expiry of the term of his ap- pointment and his tenure could not be extended. This fact has been proved by M.W.I Mr. Amol B Jagtnp M.W.I The testimony of M.VV.l on this point goes uncontroverted. He has proved the same fact which was nlerid.xl by the management in its written statement. Even in the rejoinder the con- cerned workman did not saids that the post of Safai- walu were not reduced by the Military Authorities in the annual contract made for the year 1995-96 bet- ween the Cantonment Boatd and Military Authorities.

3. The management of Cantonment Board Mathura filed written statement with the contention that the claim of the workman was barred by Limi- tation, hence it is liable to be rejected on the ground alone. It mis been alleged that although the mana- gement had raised objection in the very beginning that the Central Government was the appropriate government to refer the dispute to CGIT and the State Government had no jurisdiction in the matter but the workman did not pay heed to it and ultimate- ly the industrial dispute was referred to the State Industrial Tribunal Agra which dismissed the claim on the ground that it had nu jurisdiction to try the case. It has been alleged that the concerned work- man was appointed vide order dated 9-12-93 on the post of Safaiwala for a fixed period up to 28-2-94 according to the rules applicable to the employees of Cantonment Board. His appointment was made in view of the contract made between the Military Offi- cers and the Cantonment Board. Thereafter the term of the concerned workman was extended from J-3-94 lu 28-2-95 by written order. The concerned workman was appointed temporarily and had no right to hold the post. After I he term of appoint- ment expired his services automatically came to an end. However, one month's notice was also given to him before the expiry of the term of his appoint- ment. Tt has been ullceed that some post of safai- waki was reduced by Military Administration in the year 1995-96 hence the services of the concerned workman was terminated for want of the post as the posts sanctioned earlier were reduced by the Military by w.iy of contract made between the Military autho- rities and the Cantonment Board for the year 1995-96. The salary of the concerned workman up to 28-2-93 was paid. It Inis been prayed that there is no illegality in ihc action taken by the management of Cantonment Board Mathura. It has been alleged6180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 27, 2001/KARTIKA 5, 192-3 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] I am therefore inclined to believe the case of the management on the point that the posts oi' Safai- wala were reduced or abolished during the year 1995- 96 hence the concerned workman could not get exten- sion or service or continuity of service with effect from 1-3-95 us his service term was extended by the competent authority up to 28-2-95 and the ap- pointing authority hud no jurisdiction to extend the lerm of the service of the concerned workman due to abolition or reduction of the posts of Safaiwala. I, therefore, hold that termination of the service of the concerned workman docs not appear to be arbi- trary and illegal specially when there was no post on which he could be allowed to continue as Safai- wala after 1-3-95.

8. The authorised jeui\tentative for the workman has argued that as concerned workman had worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of termi- nation he was entitled to get protection of the pro- visions of Section 25F of the Act. He has further argued that admittedly no notice as required under Section 25F of the Act and no retrenchment compen- sation as required under the aforesaid section was given to the concerned workman before the date of termination, the impugned order of termination be- ing passed in violation of Section 25F of the Act is illegal and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the authorised representative for the manage- ment has argued that the case of the concerned work- man is squarely covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act hence the termination of the service of the concerned workman does not come within the definition of letrenchment and the provisions of Section 25F of the Act shall not apply to his case.

9. Alter going through the record of the case and the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) and Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, I find force in the con- tention of the authorised representative for the mana- gement. Section 2(oo) defines retrenchment. It has been provided under Section 2(oo) that retrench- ment means termination by the employer of the ser- vice of the workman for i;ny reason what so ever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a) voluntaiily retirement (if the workman, or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of .'upcrammaiion if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

[(bb) termination of the service of the work- man as a result of uon-rcnewal of the contract of employment between the emp- loyer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being termi- nated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health;] 10. From the definition of Ic-trenchnicnt as given in Section 2(oo)(bb) it is clear that termination of the services of the workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry is not included in the definition of retrenchment in this case Madan Lai Balmiki was appointed vide order dated 9-12-93 by the executive officer up to 28-2-94 and his term was further extended for a period up to 28-2-95. On 28-2-95 the services of the concerned workman came lo an end automatically as there was not any renewal of the contract of employment as no post of safaiwala was available for his continuance in service. In these circumstances 1 hold that the alleged termination of scrviee of the concerned workman being covered by clause (bb) mentioned above did not come within the definition of retrenchment as given under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with the retrench- ment of the workman from the service by the emp^ loyer. As the termination of the service of the c o n- cerned workman did not tome within the definition given under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act. the provisions of Section 25F of the Act did not apply in the case and the management was not under any obligation to make compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

11. The authorised representative for the workman has placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court passed on 13-2-81 in Malkhan Singh versus Union of India 1981(42) FLR 407 in which it was laid down that terminaiijn of service of temporary lailway servant by one month notice amounts to ret- renchment. The law laid down in this case docs not apply in this case because the definition of ret- renchment was amended in the year 1984 where by clause (bb) has been added indicating that if the term of appointment is not renewed by the employer or the service are terminated according to the terms of service that termination ehall not amount to ret- renchment. Thus the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court is of no help to the workman.

12. In view of above considerations I do not find any illegality in the action taken by the management of Cantonment Board in terminating the services of the concerned workman with effect from 1-3-95.

13. I, therefore, hold that the action of the Execu- tive Officer, Cantonment Board, Mathura in termi- nating the services of Sri Dinesh Kumar is legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in pursuance of reference made to this tribunal.

14. Reference is therefore, answered against the concerned workman.

Dated • 27-9-2001.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer6181 New Delhi, the 15th October, 200)

New Delhi, the hSth October 2001 S.O. 2938.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 32(E), dated the 4th January, 2000 pub- lished in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-IT, Sec'ion 3(ii) dated the llth January, 2000.

S.O. 2939.—Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the ser- vices in the Coail Industry which is covered by item 04 of the First Schedule to (he Industrial Disputes Act, J947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility service, for the purposes ol the said Act; In the said notification under the heading "Ap- pointed by the Central Government under clause (f) of Section 4 in consultation with the organizations of employers recognized by tlie Central Government for the purposes", for the entries against S. No. 32, the following entries shall ^e substituted, namely:—

"Sh. R. A. Sharma,

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Govern- ment hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months.

Director (P). HMT Limited, HMT Bhawan, 59-Bcllary Road, Bangalore-560032."

[No. S-11O17|2|97-IR(FL)] [No. U-16O12|1|98-SS.T]

P. P. MITRA, Director K, C. JAIN, Director

Printed by the Manager, Govl. of Tndia Press, Rins Road, New Dclhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Fitbli^tiqns, Dellii-l 1005-1, 2001