This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

4. After the written statement was filed on behalf of the management, a leng'hy rejoinder was also filed by the union trying to explain the things stated in the written statement of trie management and some amend- ment was also sought to be made in the statements of claim of the union and a large number of documents were filed and called for from the management.

5. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing. But, in course of hearing the union examined the concerned workman, D;nesh Kumar Mondal as WW-1 on 31-08-1994. However, his cross-examination was deferred, Later, he wrr, renuired to aopear for his cross- examination on 20-10-J 994, but a prayer for adjourn- ment was made on behalf of the union. Then the date was fixed on 24-11-1994, but on that date neither the workman appeared as a witness, nor any of the repre- sentatives of the parties turn up. The case remained pending for a long ';me in the expectation that the parties could come to proceed with the hearing, but none of the parties came till the case was reserved for Award. It is, therefore, clear thpt the only witness examined on behalf of the union has also not been produced for cross-examination and the evidence of this witness WW-1 therefore, stands exDuncci. Tt has been stated earlie.r that the management also stopped annearing at that stnee and therefore there is no evidence on behalf of the management also.

6. So far as the dnruments are concerned, as it has been stated earlier that lartre number of documents were filed, but the onlv document which has been admitted into eviencc '"s Ext. W-l which is the armoint- ment letter of the concerned workman, Dinesh Kumar Mortal. In this anpoi-itment letter there is no mention of anv snec'ai allowance and there is no other document in this regard.

7. The matter, therefore, stands at the point that whether thp concerned workman was entitled to conti- nuance of his soecial allowance or not. There cannot be anv doubt ab^ut it that the memorandum of settle- ment dated 24-05-1^00 was a memorandum on All Tndia bas's and all the award staff of the Bank were bound bv it. As per tho conditions of the memorandum of settlement a person who was receiving this special allowance on permanent Mris before the uma¹fttination or a person who conf'nued to get it for 3 years prior to the dafe of amaifranation was heM to be entitled to thp said snecial allowance. While it was pleaded on behalf of the union that the special allowance was being granted to the, concerned workman on permanent basis, il was challenge 1 on behalf of the management and it was stated that it was only on temporary and acting basis and therelore, the concerned workman was not covered by any of the above two conditions. Therefore, there was DO question of continuance of his special allowance after the memo-andum of settlement dated 24-05-1990 cane into effect. It appears that either there was some settlement outside the Tribunal betweeu the parties or the union thought it futile to continue with the ca=?e end therefore both the parties subse- quently stopped appearing.

8. In the circumstance, it is obvious that there has been no material at all the support of the claim of the union and the c'aim therefore is not fit to be allowed. Accordingly, the reference is answered and disposed of. Dated, Kolkata,

The 4th October, 2001.

B. P. SHARMA. Prcsidine Officer New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001

SO 2974—In rmrsuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of J947), the Central Government heieby publishes t'ae award of the Central Government In- dn,tna' Tr bunul, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in Ihc rndu

fNo. L-11012|8]200MR(M)1

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORP THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 21st September, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 5W2001 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under dauso (d) of sub-section (1) and srb-sccti->n 2(A) of Seel ion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("14 of 1947), between the Workman Smt N. Kasturi ard the Manjgement of Air- port Authority of India, Chennai)

BETWEEN

Smt. N. Kasturi : I Party|Workman.

AND

The Airport Director, Airport Authoaty of Tndra (IAD) Chennai. : II Paity 'Management.

APPEARANCE :

For the Woikman : Unrepresented.

For the Management : Sri V.S.R. Hanu Babu Koka, Advocte.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exeicKg of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2 ( \) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation vide Order No. L-11012l8'2001-IR(M) dated 8-6-2001 :—

"Whethei the alleged termination and non-employment of Smt. N. Kasturi by the Airport Authoii'y of India (TAD) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. On receipt of the order of reference from the Ministry of Laboui, Govt. of India, in respect of this industiial dis- pute between the paities, notices were sent to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal and to make their lepiesenta- lron .'n I expect of the referred d spute.

3. When the matter is taken up for final hea;ing on 21-9-2001, both the parties and the counsel on iccord for the II PartylManagemert not present and there it> no icp- resentation. Neithei party has chosen to file their lespective plea as Claim Statement and Counter Statement inspife of several adjournments were given. Though the I Party[Work- man. Smt. N. Kasturi once appeared and requested time to file her Claim Statement, she has not appeared subse- quently. The TI PartylManagement, though represented bv a counsel by filing vakalat, they hnve also evinced no interest in this case Because of the non-representation of either parties and their non-appeaiance and non-prosecution of this c se by put forth t^eir respective contpntion, f*v's Tribnril have no other option except to hold thut no di'pu.- b".w^_n the parties now exists for adjudication bv this Tribunal for the industrial dispute referred to by the Central Govt in the Schedule of Reference.

4. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dis- pute' now exists between the parties. No Cost.

("Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and tvped by him, corrected and pronounced b" me in the open court on this day the 21st September, 2001.)

K. KARTHTKEYAN. Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On eithei side : None

Documents Marked :

On either side • Nil.

3326 GII2001—16.

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2001 S.O. 2975.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal cum-Labou'- Court, Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M s. Prakash Ore Carriers and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 27-09-2001.

[No. L-26012ill2000|TR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 7712001

Date of concluding of the hearing 3rd Sept. 2001

Date of Passing A word 20th Sept. 2001 BETWEEN :

The Management of M|s. Prakash Ore Carriers, Contractor- Near TI Siding, Birbil Nalda Road, P. O. Barbil, Keonjhar, 758035. 1 sf Party-Management.

AND

Their Workman, represented through the General Secretary, Barb'1 Workers Union. P. O. Barbil, Distt. Keonihar. • • 2nd Party- Union.

Appearances :

None.—For the 1st Party-Management.

None.—For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by6294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 3, 2001/KARTTKA 12, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(i;)J Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-260I2 12000 I R ( M ). dated 19-5-2000 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Mis. Prakash Ore Carriers- Con- tractor, Bolani Ores Mines, RMD, SAIL, Distt. Keonjhar, in terminat- ing the services of Shri Dayalan Iyanagar, Supervisor from 16-1-1999 without issuing a specific charge sheet and following the principle of natural justice is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Inspite of intimation sent to the Parties, both the Union and the Management have not appeared before this Tribunal. Notices were also issued by the Tribunal to both the parties. The Union has not filed his Claim Statement. The Management has also not taken any step. So both the parties have been set exparte.

3. The dispute has been raised at the ins- tance of the Union. When no materials have been placed by both the parties there is no scope for the Tribunal to answer the reference.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th October, 2001 S.O. 2976.—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 cum-Laboi'r Court, Mumbai No. 2 a's shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the Mormugao Port Trust and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on the 8-10-2001.

[No. L-36012/2/2000, IR(JVn]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

JBEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT MUM BAT (CAMP AT GOA)

PRESENT :

Shri S. N. Saundi.ru-ir, I . e w ng Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2/S6 of 2(100 Employers in relation to the management of Mormugao Port Trust The Chairman, Mormugao Port Trust, Mormugao Harbour, Goa-403 803.

AND

Their workmen The General Secretary, Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union. Zaiboon Apartment, Near Cine El-Monte, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—Mr. M. B. Anchan, Ad\o- cate.

For the Workmen—No appearance.

Goa, dated 19th September, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-36012/2/2000/IR(M) dated 11th August, 2000, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. have referred tbe following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Mor- mugao Port Trust, Goa (a) in denying full wages, increment and bonus to Shri A. A. Rangel, Clerk, EDP No. 129537 of Traffic Department during the period of his sus- pension from 27-11-1989 to 26-7-1991 is legal and justified ? (b) in denying balance subsistence allowance as per the revised scale of Pay, Bonus and oth-T benefits to Shri A. A. Rangel, Clerk, EDP No. 129537 of Traffic Department during the period of his suspension from 9-5-1992 to 28-8-1997 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"6295 2. On receipt of reference in the beginning notice (Ex. 1) was sent to the union as well as line manage- ment M.P.T. and in response to the notice on behalf of the management Advocate Mr. M. B. Anchan ap- peared (vide Ex. 5). None appeared on behalf of the union though seived (vide E\ 4). Recoid shows none on bel.alt of ihc ur.iun lumed when the matter was fixed even at Goa on 23-1-2001 though the union received notice (vide Ex. 6B), when ihe management's counsel was present. Matter wa> again fixed at Goa on 24-4-2001 for the convenience of ihe parties con- cerned as per notice (Ex. 8), however, though union served with notice (Ex. 10) none appeared un its behalf. Matter was again fixed on 1H-9-2001 ai Goa of which notice (Ex. 11) was given to union and that union though served vide acknowledgement (EK, 13) none appeared on its behalf, alsa today, nor put state- ment of claim. The Learned Counsel for the manage- ment Shi l M. B Ant ban vide application (Ex. 14) pointed out that union is not interested in prosecuting, hence not present throughout, therefore icferencc be disposed of. As stated above, it is apparent that union is not interested to prosecute the refeience, therefore following order is passed.

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-piosccution.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the I lth October, 2001 S.O. 2977.-—In pursuance of Section 17 of Ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-c urn-Labour Court, Jaipur (Rajas- than) as shown in the Annexure, in the Indus- trial dispute between the employers in relation to the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and their work men which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 08-10-2001.

[No. L-29012>'200l FR(M)| B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIEUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT 4612001

Reference No. L-29OJ2|36|2OOllIR(M) Dated 31-7-2001

Shri Lehru Lai, So Shri Nanda Ji Gadhari, R[O Munga Ka Kheda, P. O. Putholi. The, Gangrar, Distt Chittorgadh. . . Applicant

Versus

The Senior Manager (P&A), Chanderia Lead Zinc Smelter, P. O. Putholi, Chittorgadh, Rajasthan.

. . Non-Applicant Attendances :

For the Applicant.—Applicant Shri Lehrulal.

For the Non-Applicant.—Shri Ramcsh Chandra Pancholi Advocate. Date of Award.—24-09-2001

AWARD

The Central Government vide order men- tioned above has referred the following dis- pute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Ac'. 1947 (hereinafter referr- ed as the Act. 1917) tor adjudication :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. in tcrminat- ircs the services of Shri Lehru Lai Ciadhgari w.e f. 27 Sept. 1999 justi- fied ? If not- what relief the work- man is entitled ?"

On receipt of the reference notices were issued 'o both the pi.rties. The applicant) workman sent a copy of the letter dt. 16-8-2001 addressed to the Under Secretary, Govern- ment of Indin. Ministry of Labour in which it has been stated that he is not willing to pursue the reference. He has been given fresh appointment by the non-applicant having sympathetic altitude towards him. Tlvrc is6 96 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 3, 2001/KARTTKA 12, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] no demand pending against the non-appli- cant. 11 hd> been prayed that the dispute may be rejeeted. The applicant is present in person. He does not want to file any claim and has submitted similar application as addressed to Under Secretary, Government of Tndia that he does not want to press the dispute, which was raised, by him and there- fore, no dispute pward may be passed. On behalf of the non-applicant Shri Ramesh Chandra Pancholi is present. As no dispute exists between the parties, no dispute award is passed in the matter.

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

Sdj- illegible

Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th October, 2001 S.O. 2978.—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 Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M|s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on OS-10-2001.

[No. L-29011|39|99jIR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 307)2001

Date of concluding of the hearing 14th Sept. 2001

Date of Passing Award 27th Sept. 2001 BETWEEN :

The Management of M,s. Orissa Mining, Corporation Ltd., O.M.C. House, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) -75 1001.

1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workmen, represented through the, Women Diploma Holder Association, Or. No. £,9, Kaliapani, Jaipur.

2nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

Shri P. S. Kanungo, Manager, (Labour Welfare). . . For the 1st Party- Management.

None. . . For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in tixercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (J ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes .Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29011 '39¹1999'IR(M), dated 30-11-1999 :—

"Whether the action of the Management of OMC Ltd. in discriminating in fixation of pay scales of staff'crcche nursr with effect from 1-5-1989 and 1-1-1996 is-justified. If not, to what relief the workmen are en- titled ?"

2. The case of the 2nd Party-Union may be stated in brief :—

Then- was a revision of pay scale of Junior AsuM.in'. Senior Typist and " Cheche Neursc J'JI in the year 1981. Again there was revision ol scale ot pay in the year 1985. According to the 2nd Party-Union as per i989 revised scale, the scale ot creche Nurse was more than the scale of Senior Assistant and Senior Typist. Instead ot Several representations made by the 2nd Party-Union to tne 1st Pany- Management to fix the scale ol pay, no acaon was taken. So the dispute was raised and on failure ol reconciliation, this reference has been made.

The 1st Party-Management on receipt of the copy of the reference and the Claim State- ment filed by the 2nd Party-Union had filed their Written Statement. They have denied the statement made by the 2nd Party-Union in their Claim Statement. They have further taken the stand that the Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union had filed a Writ Application be- fore the Hon'ble High Court, CMssa bearing O.J.C. No. 894 i99 on the very same grounds and seeking identical relief. According to the 1st Party-Management the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd Party-Union are not entitled for any relief.

4. After receipt of the Written Statement from the 1st Party-Management the case was adjourned from time to time for filing of the list of witnesses and list of documents and for settlement of issues. But the 2nd Party- Union did not attend in the proceeding to enable the Tribunal to answer the reference. When the averments made by the 2nd Party- Union has been denied by the 1st Party- Management ?nd when the dispute has been raised at the instance of the • 2nd Party-Union, the initial burden lies on the 2nd Party-Union to establish its case by producing either oral or-documentary evidence. But nothing has been done by the 2nd Party-Union in this case. So in absence of any materials in support of the case of the 2nd Partv-Union it can not be said that the action of the 1st Party-Manage- ment is un-justified,

5. As per my,above discussion. T am of the opinion that the action of the 1st Pariy- Management of Orissa Mining Corpo-ration Limited in discriminating in fixation of pav scale of staff [creche nurse with effect from 1-5-1989 and 1-1-1996- is not unjustified and thfe Workmen arc not entitled for anv relief.

6. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th October, 2001 S.O. 2979.—In pursuance of Section 17 ot the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ol 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award ot the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute, between the employers in relation to the management of Blharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-10-2001.

[No. L-43012/6/94-IR(M;]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-L^BOUK COURT "SHRAM SADAN". Ill MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated, 24th September, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shn V. N. Kdlkarni, B. Com. LLB Presiding Officer CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C.R. No-. 10/97

" TPARTY :

The President, Bharat Gold Mines Association, No. 545, Near Punjabi Quarters, Oorgaum Post, Kolar Gold Field-563120 (Advocate-K. V. Sdthy.iiian*yana).

II PARTY:

The Managing Director, Bharat Gold Mines Linn'ed, Oorgaum Post,

Kolar Gold Fields-56'S 120.

(Advocate-A, S. Eopanna).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (dj of Sub-section 2A of line Section 10 of tne fndusmal Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-43012/6/ 94-IR(Misc.) daied 29th December, 1994 for ad' judication on the following acnedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the enquiry conducted by Bharal Gold Mines Limited was fair and pioper in con- nection with the dismissal of Miri Venu- gopal P.E. No. 176304 with effect from 1-7-1993 ? If not, what relief Shri Venugopal is entitled to and from which date ?

2. The first party union workman was working with the management. Charge-sheet was issued ard enquiry was conducted. On the basis of ihe enquiry report the first party union workman was dismissed. Therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

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

4. The case of the first patty union is as follows :

5. It is the case of the union that the workman was appointed as General Labour by the second party management on 2-4-1984 for project, and contracts division and (has put in 10 years of unblemished ser- vice till he was unreasonably dismissed with effect from 1-7-1993.

6. As per the understanding reached between the recognised union and the management, the project and contract division workers were allowed to work at K.G.F. mines once in 6 months for a shorter duration as per the requirements of the second party management and they will be reverted back to pro- jects and contracts division.

7. It is the further case of the first party union workman that he was allocated to work along with 3 other workmen namely S/Shri Subramani, Maistry in charge. Mohanraj and Ramakrishnar. by Shri Ravi- kumar, Foreman at New Golconda Shaft. Nature of work is also stated in detail.

8. It is the further case of the union that the first party workman was directed to go and bring ihe mumty from where it is kept hidden to avoid others taking it for their use. When the workman went to bring the mumty as advised by the Maistry at N44 cross cut he was caught hold by th* detective portv alleging that he was involved in an illegal activifv of bounding the GBQ pieces with the help of a 14 lbs hammer and one jumber spanner.

9. Regarding enquiry it is said that the charges were not explained. The day today proceedings are not explained. The enquiry is not correct. Full oppor- tunity was not given to the first party union workman to defend himself. Charges are not correct. The- union for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in favour of the workman.

10. The case of the Second party in brief is as fol- lows :

11. It is true that the first party was appointed for projects anJ Contracts Division on 3-4-1984. It is not correct that he has put in 10 y^ars of unblemished service. There is no understanding between the ietog- nised union and the Second party. The first party workman was indulging in an acr of gold stealing in that on 5-1-93 at about 12.40 P.M. He was caught in red handed by Shri Francis Peier. G. D. Havildar No. 184 and others at 33 level N. 45, Chatty stope of New Golconda' Shaft while he was sitting and pounding the GBQ piece using 16 lbs. Hammer and jumper spanner. Charge sheet was issued and regular enquiry was conducted.

12. Regarding enquiry it is stated that the same is correct and full opportunity was given to the work- man to defend himself. All the allegations made by the first party workman are not correct and miscon- duct is proved. The action of the management is cor- rect. Management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

13. It is seen from the records that the manage- ment examined one witness to prove that the enquiry is fair and proper.

14. It is seen from the records that tlrs Tribunal by its order dated 19th June, 2001 has held that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and valid. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. I have heard argu- ments of both sides. I have perused all the records carefully.

15. Now that the enquiry is held as fair and as per there are no convincing grounds to say that the en- quiry report is perverse and the findings is based with- out any evidence. In a situation like this it is very difficult to invoke the provisions of Section 11 -A re- garding punishment. There is nothing on record to show that the enquiry is perverse.

16. The learned counsel for the first party has filed copy of the acquittal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class at KGF argued that the workman is acquitted and therefore, he may be reinstated. There is no merit in this arguments because that the party union workman has fai'ed to establish that the findings of the Enquiry Officer arc perverse. It may be a fact that the workman is acquitted in a criminal case but that will not help in interferring the finding of the enquiry officer.

17. Misconduct is proved. The learned counsel for the management has filed decision of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 5517-19/98 C/W. Writ Appeal No. 5599/98 and Writ appeal No. 522- 23/99 and submitted that the High Court of Karnataka has held that in such cases when the management can- not any more repose confidence with the workman, it is always unsafe to reinstate such workmen who are of such conduct.

18. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above Writ Appeals and considering the facts, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference. Ac- cordingly I proceed to pass the following order.

6 7)

AW ARC

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed bv brr, corrected a-id

signed by me on 24th September, 2001).

V. N. KULKAKNr, Presiding Officer

By Older N, L-3^12,6,8S-ii. TJI ("1) dau d ht of March, 1989 the C ent'vJ f>')v-r^ment in exercise of h) pcv>- 3 und^r section .10(1 )(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19-^7 referred the following dispute to this Tiibmial for adjudication :

Hi fcwfV, 12 ? M ^ T, 2001

SFT.xfT. 29 8 0.— rftsftft^ fo^T? STferfaiPT, 1947

(1947 ^T 14) W\ 5TRT 17 % ^TTTT ??, ^ VT

fasrrs *f %^>T T ^R ?fNfrRr^ -rfg-^or, EFT^^T %

"Whether the action of the managtmerit of Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta in imrosing punishirent of reduction of p-"".' '°} 5 4'g^s for 3 year-, with cumulative effect on Shri Sk Saidul Islam, Artinc Loadm.";i 'D \ Se\a' is justified ? If liot to \\hat reiie the wckm^n is entitled ?"

08-10-2001 ^ STFfTf^T "TT I

J5 TT^r- 3 2012/6/8 8-3Y-III ("

New Delhi, the 12th October, 20C1

S. O. ?931—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispurer Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govern Tien I Indumial Tribunal Kolkata as shown in the Anncxurc in he Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in lelation to the management of Calcutta Port Tmst and tHer workman, which was received by the Central Government on 0840-2001.

INo. L-32012/6/88 D. Ill (B)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 05 of 1989

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Calcutta Port Trust, Calcutta

AND

1 heir workman

Present :

Mr. Justice Bharat Pr?sad Sharma

. . .Picsidinr Officer

Appearance:

Onbeha'f of Management Mr. G. Mukhopadhyav,

Senior Labour Officer (1R)

On behalf of Workman M"'. S. Chikraborty,

Secetary of the Union.

2. Tha present dispute has \~:±n ivi>cd bj the Calcutta Port & Shr>vc Mazdoor L'aion on behalf of one workman S.K. Saidul Islam v\ho was awarded punishment by the management to the effect of withholding of bis 5 increments for 3 ycais in pursuance of a deapart:ncntal proceeding conduc- ted in this regard. In their written statement the union has stated that the said Saidul I-Jam was deputed to undertik., ship keeping duly on D. V. Scva as an Acting Leadsman uidc the Superintendani, Dredger & Despatch Service controlled by the Director of Marine Department of the Calcutta Po t Tiust. IL is fuither ^toted that on 18-12-1981 while S.K. Saidul Mam was going to his houso on completion of his duty, he was apprehended by one C.IS.F. peisonal and was implicated in a ciiminal case v\jth the allegation of theft and wa^ detained by the Police. However, he was released on bail on the same day. Sub- sequently, afitr trial the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta acquitted him of the charee brought against him. This order was passed on 10-01-1983. Thereafter, on 14-09-1983 the Director, Marine Department issue a ehargeshcet against the said workman on the same allegation on which he was tiied by the CoiiT>t and was acquitted and a departmental enquiry was also started against him. Shri Islam received charge- sheet on 16-09-1983. He fiLd a petition on 23-09-1983 to permit him to take extracts and inspect certain documents for submission of his explanation, which was permitted and subsequently he submitted a statement of defence, after getting extension of time, on 27-10-1983. By an order dated 11/15-11-1983 the Dhector, Maiiac Depart- ment appointed one Captain P.P. Vcrma as Enquiry Officer ar.d one Slid I. S. Ka npani was appointed as Piesenting Officei during the contem- plated departmental enquiiy. However, on completion of enquiry the Enquiry. OfFccr found him guilty cf the charge brought against him and the disciplinary authriity m agreement with the State : West Bengal. Industry : Poit & Dock.

the departmental enquiry was therefore i"ega>, unfair and motivated. It is a'so further stated that close examination of the proceedings of the departmental enquiry docs not allow to deiive the conclusion as reached by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has failed to examine the defence statement. It is stated that no step was taken by him to find out whether the Bridge No. 1 was open. There was no witness to prove tbat the C.I S.F. personnel apprehended Sk. Islam inside the wicket gate No. 2 KPD with so called material in his possession. It is also stated that the reason for insisting issuance of the charge sheet by he C.LS.F. personnel was not also enquired into and the Enquiry officer also did not examine physically whether 2 KPD gate and 2 KPD wicket gate can be looked after by one CISF personnel fiom 2 KPD gate. It is stated lhat it has not been established befoie the Enquiry Officer whether any brass pully was actually lost from the D. V. Seva and actually not police report was made even after the commander made a formal compl- aint that one brass pully was removed. It is therefore stated that the Enquiry Officer did not consider these point- in a very inegular way derived the conclusion to induce the disciplinary authority for awarding a punishment by finding the workman guilty and he also illegally incor- porated one paragraph as previous offence in his finding submitted before the disciplinary authority. It is stated that it appears that the enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority on 15-01-1985 with recommendation of punishment from the Superintendent, Dredger Despatch Services and as such the decision taken by the disciplinary authority was biased and failed to extend justice to Sk. Islam. It is, therefore, stated that from the facts stated it appears that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry was not just and proper and the punishment imposed upon the woikman was vindictive, unfair and illegal. Accordingly, it has p:ayed that the management be directed to vacate the order of punishment imposed upon Shri Islam and payment of the legal dues be ordered to be made.

find—ngs of thoEnqury O'ficcr irmjscd p'inish t i nt of reduction in pay by 5 stages for 3 years with cumulative effect. A show cause letter was also issued in this regard on 29-01-1985 and S.K. Mam gave a reply on 18-02-1985 and finally tne disci- plinary authority awarded the punishment by order dated 25/26 February, 1985 Thereafter, the said workman also preferred an appeal befoie the appe"ate authority, which was rejected and the punishment was maintained It is stated that the departmental enquiry initiated against the workman was under the provisions of the Ca'cutta Poii Commissioners Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964. It is further stated that ihe proposed disciplinary enquiry was contemplated following a complaint made by the Commander of D. V. Se\a dated 18-12-1981 and also s com- munication from the Dock Manager dated 1 lth January, 1983 It is stated that the workman who was apprehended by the C.I.S.F personnj on 18-12-1981 was banded ovci to Police and subsequently was released on bail and thereafter be filed an application for allowing him to jo'i service and resume duty acd resumed the same on 20th December. 1981 It is stated ibat ordi- narily considering the allegation of theft, which is a seiious allegation and amounts to seiious misconduct in service, a person is suspended, but in this case be w,?s not suspended and actually the allegation was based on initial complaint by the Commander, D V. Seva that he was informed tbat S K. Islam was cougbt by C I S.F. personnel for takirjg a brass pu'ly takon from D. V. Seva and that this mateiial was removed from one motor boat three sheaves Blocks from the Ford Store. It is stated that the initiation of the departmental proceeding pending tiial of criminal case is not baricd in law. but in the instant case, it was not started before expiry of about 8 months after the judgement was delivered by tbe Criminal Couit It is further stated that with a view to stop haivosment of employee implicated in false criminal case representation was made to the management following which an adminis- trative order was issued and it was circulated by tbe Secretary of the CPT having its reference No. 6945/E 2 dated 3rd May, 1983. It is stated that taking into consideration the directives circulated

3. The management also filed a written statement in which the facts in general were admitted and it was submitted that the said S.K. Saidul Islam was apprehended by the Central Industrial Security Force personnel while crossing wicket gate No. 2 KPD with a brass pully Roller which belonged to vessel D. V. Seva and was kept in the store of the said vessel from where it was removed and stolen by Sk. Islam. Thereafter Sk. Islam was handed over to the Police of South Port Police Station alongwith the stolen article by C.I.S.F. personnel and a criminal case6301 was registered against him, but subsequently the workman was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magis- trate on benefif of doubt. It is further stated that the management decided 'o i.nili;ite disciplinary proceeding against the said workman on the charge of misconduct and the charge read as follows ;

findings of the Enquiry Officer, he proposed to inflict punishment of reduction of pay by 5 stages for 3 years with cumulative effect and issued a show cause notice to S.k. Islam on 29-01-1985 and the workman also submitted a reply on 18-02-1985 and after considering the reply of Sk. Saidul Islam, the disciplin ary authority passed an order on2 5/26-02-1985 "That the said Sk. Saidul Islam is charged with gross misconduct in asmuch as while func- tioning as Acting Leadsman on board D. V. 'Seva', removed Brass Pulley Roller from ford store of D. V. 'Seva' and stolen the same on 18-12-1981".

imposing the proposed punishment. Thereafter, Sk. Saidul Islam preferred an appeal on 09-10-1985 against the order of the disciplinary authority, which was considered by the Deputy Chairman being the appellate authority and as the appeal was time- barred, the same was rejected. It is further stated that the Board contends that the entire allegations made in the written statement of the union is imagi- nary, false and concockled and save what are matters of record and save as what have been stated herein- after, all the allegations made by the union in their written statement arc denied. The allegations have been denied para-wise accordingly It has been stated that so far as the plea of challenging the departmental proceeding en the ground that there was delay in taking action and also that the work- man was not suspended is concerned, it is slated the question of suspension is the discretion of l nc disci- plinary authority and there is no time limit fixed for initiation of the chargesheets and the enquiry. It is also stated that the allegation is incorrect that the Enquiry Officer failed to examine defence statement or that the proceeding of enquiry does not allow to derive the conclusion as reached by the Enquiry Officer. All kinds of allegations made in the written statement of the union have been denied and des-_ cribed as imaginary, baseless and without any foun- dation.

4. It is clear that the present case is not covered by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because it is not a case in which the workman has been discharged or dismissed by the disciplinaiy authority. Therefoie, the only question which require to be decided is whether the Enquiry was fair and valid and if the enquiry on which the management relied on to inflict the punishment is found to be valid and legal, there is no scope for considering the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment.

The statement of allegation, on the basis of which the chargesheet was drawn up states that the said Sk. Saidul Islam, Acting Leadsman, D. y. Seva was cought red-handed by C.T.S.F. watchman at wicket gate No. 2 K.PD with a brass pulley roller at 11.45 hours on 18-12-1981 and that this brass pulley roller was removed from motor boat's 3 sheavec block which was placed at the ford store of D. V. Seva and was stolen. Jt is further stated that the disciplinary proceeding was contemplated in terms of the CpT Employees (Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1964 and according to the rules the Director, Marina Department happened to be the disciplinary authority in this case. It is also further stated that a memorandum of charge bearing No. 6603 dated 14-09-1983 together with a statement of charge, a statement of allegation was served on Sk. Saidul Islam by the Director and under the ak' mem. JTL d" n of charge the Director asked Sk. Islam to reply to chargesheet by 29-09-1983 and to state whether the desired to be heard in person and also to furnish the names and addresses cf the witnesses, if any, whom he wished to call in support of his defence, and also to furnish a list of documents, if any, which he wished to produce in support of his defence. Jt is further stated that he was asked to name his defence counsel, if any, and on receipt of the memorandum of charges, the workman prayed for some more time lo submit his reply, which was allowed. But, he did not reply to the memorandum of charge. Tt is further stated that Mr. P, P. Verma, Superintendent, Dredger & Despatch Services was appointed Enquiry Officer and Mr. J. S. Kampani, Junior Chief Officer was appointed Presenting Officer by the Director, Marine Department, i.e., the disciplinary authority. Tt is further stated that the Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 and submitted his findings en 15-01-1985. ft is also stated that all possible opportunities were extended to Sk. Islam by tht Enquiiy Cfficei to ds.fi.nd himself. It is stated that as the Enquiry Officer found Sk. Islam guilty of the charge levelled against him and the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the

5. in support of their respective cases both the parties have filed a number of documents. So far as the management is concerned, the documents filed and admitted in evidence on their behalf are as follows ; Ext. M-l is the records of enquiry pro- ceeding and report. Ext. M-2 is a letter dated 12-06-1979 from the Superintendent, Dredger & Despatch Service to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division regarding some incident of theft. Ext. M-3 is the memorardum dated 14-09-1983 issued to Sk. Saidul Islam. Ext. M-4 is a kHcr 3326 GII2001—17.

Ext. W-ll is order of punishment dated 25/26 Feb- ruary, 1985 issued to Sk. Saidul Islam. Ext. W-l2 is appeal dated 09-10-1985 from Sk. Saidul Islam to the Chairman, CPT. Ext. W- 13 is a letter dated 20th December, 1985 from the Director, Marine Depart- ment to Sk. Saidul Tslam. It is, therefore, obvious that many of the papers have been filed and admitted in evidence on behalf < f both the parties.

6. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, one witness has been examined on behalf of the manage- ment. He is J. S. Kampani the Presenting Officer during the enquirv who has supported the fairness of the enquiry in his evidence and nothing signi- ficant has been elicited from him in his cross-Lxarri- nation,

7. So far as the union is concerned, it appears that the workman himself, Sk. Saidul Islam was examined on 21-12-1994, but even his examination in chief was not concluded and he was never pro- duced subsequently for his further examination and cross-examination. Therefore, such a deposition stands expunged. Therefore, so far as the oral evidence is concerned, there is no oral evidence available to contradict the evidence led on behalf of the management regarding fairness of the enquiry.

8. So far as thj plea taken on b ; h i T of th; u l ' oi

regarding non-suspension of the workman during the enquiry is concerned, it has been rightly sub- mitted on b.-half of the management that it is the discretion of the management whether to suspend a parson or not and because of his non-suspension no illegality or irregularity can be at*ached to the enquiry and there is no question of any prejudice being caused to the workman,

dated 12-12-1981 from Sk Saidu] Mam to the Super- intendent, Dredgei & Despatch. Ext. M 5 is the letter dated 11-01-1982 from the Commander, D. V. Seva to Sk. Saidul Mam Fxt NT-6 is the letter dated 15-10-1983 from Sk. Islam to the Director, Marine Depar ment Ext. M-7 is the letter dated 27-11-1984 from the Assistant Secretary of the Calcutta Port & Shore Mazdoor Union to the Deputy Superintendent, Dredger & Despatch Service. Ext. M-8 is the letter dated 08-05.1984 from the Super- intendent, Dredger & Despatch Service to the Assis- tant Secretary of the TJnion. Ext. M-9 is a letter dated 29-12-1983 from the Enquiry Officer to Sk. Saidul Islam. Ext. M - ]0 is a letter dated 18-02-1985 from Sk. Saidul Tslam to the Director, Marme Depart- ment. Ext. M-II is extracts of the Log Book of D. V. Seva. Ext. M-12 is a letter dated 18-11-1985 from the defence counsel of Sk. Mam to the Enquiry Officer. Ext. M-]3 is the letter dated 29-01-1985 from the Director, Marine Department to Sit. Saidul Tslam. Ext. M-14 is the order dated 25/26-02-1985 from the Director, Marine Dcp t. Ext. M- 15 is the letter dated 06-08-1985 fn-m Sk. Saidul Tslam to the Director, Marine Department. Ext. M-16 is the appeal dated 09-10-1985 from Sk. Islam to the Chairman, CPT. Ext. M-17 is the letter dated 13-12-1985 from the Labour Adviser and Tndusinal Relations Officer to Director, Marine Department. Ext. M-18 is the letter dated 20ih December, 1985 from Director, Maiinc Deptt. to Sk. Saidul Islam. Ext. M-19 is the letter dated 14-02-1987 frcni the Calcutta Port & Shore Mazdoor Union to the R.L.C. (C), Calcutta. Ext. M-20 i.s failure ieport of conci- liation Ext. M-21 is Calcutta Port Commissioner Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964. Ext. M-22 is a circular dated 3rd Ma>, 1983 of the Calcutta Port Trust. Ext. M-23 is a letter dated 18-12-1981 from the Commander, D, V. Seva to Superintendent, Dredger &. Despatch Service. On the other hand, Ext. W-l on behalf of the um>n is reprenntation dated 20-12-1981 from Sk. Saidul Islam. Ext. W-2 is the certified cepy of the order in case "No. P R. 776 of 1981. Ext. W 3 is the memo dated J4-09-1983 issued by the Director, Maiine Deptt. to Sk. Saidul Islam. Ext. W 4 is the representation dated 23-09-1983 from Sk. Saidul Mam to Directt r. Marine Deptt. Ext. W 5 is the letter dated 4/5-10-1983 from the Director, Marine Deptt. to SI". Saidul Tslam. Ext. VV-6 is he lerit'cr.Ua'cn dt.it d 15-10-1983 from Sk. Saidul Islam to the Director, Marine Deptt. M Ext. VV-7 is the representation of Sk. Saidul Islam to the Director, Marine Deptl Ext. VV-8 is the order dated 1 I/I 5th November, 1983 regarding appointment of Lnquny Officer. Lxt. W-9 is show cause notice dated 29th January, 1985. Ext. W-10 is representation dated 18-02-1985 from Sk, Saudul Islam > to the Director, Marine Peplt,

9. Another point which has been taken on behalf of the union is that the management acted illegally in drawing up the proceeding after 8 months of the conclusion of the trial of criminal case against the workman which was against the instruction of the hoard. The concerned instruction of the board i s Ext. M-22 from which it appears that there is no contemplation that the enquiry must be started within 3 months from the date of his acquittal; rather it has been stated that if no departmental action is initiated against an employee within a period of 3 months from the date of his arquittal by the Court, the period of his suspension should be treated as spirit on duty, even if his acquittal is OR benefit of doubt. It is, therefore, clear that this initrujtion is only for the purpose of giving benefit to the work- man under suspension in course of the enquiry, if the enquiry is delayed one. In the presen¹ case, there was no suspension at all and the question of his being prejudiced on this account does not arise6303 10. So far as the contention of the union that the charge on which the workman was acquitted by the Court was the same and similar as the charge in the chargesheet on which he was proceeded against is concerned, it is well settled that the criminal pro- ceeding and the departmental proceeding are two different kinds of proceedings and even if a person is acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, there is no bar to proceed against him in departmental enquiry.

11. So far as the findings of the Enquiry Officer are concerned, it appears that it is based on the ana- lysis of the evidence which was presented before the Enquiry Officer and after considering the entire evidence he arrived at the finding of guilt against the workman concerned. No other major infirmity or illegality has been pointed on behalf of the union so far as the enquiry proceeding is concerned and there does not appear to be any reason to feel that the workman has been prejudiced by the enquiry proceeding. The fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceeding can be considered only on some grounds clearly laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their workman, reported in 1965(11) LLJ 367 which is as follows :

"An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless:

(1) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him,

(2) the witnesses are examined ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges.

(3) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses,

(4) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence, if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (5) the enquiry officer records his findings with reason^ for the same in his report."

It is, therefore, clear that none of the criteria has been contravened or violated in course of the enquiry in this case as laid down by their Lordships. The enquiry, in the circumstance, cannot be held to be illegal, irregular or invalid, Therefore, the ques- tion of considering the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment does not arise.

12. In view of what have been stated above, the action of the management of Clacutta Port Trust in imposing punishment of reduction of pay by ^ stages for three years with cumulative effect on Shri Sk Saidul Islam cannot be said to be unjustified. The workman accordingly shall not be entitled to any relief.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata,

The 27th Septembei, 2001.

New Delhi, the 12th Oc'ober, 2001 S.O. "981.—In pursiiance 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, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial, Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Calcutta Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-10-2001.

[No. L-3201l/l/93-IR(M)]

B, M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNKXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 04 of 1994

Parties : E m p l o ye m rcl.irio i f> t'n: m u r i i n Mt of Calcutta Port Trust

AND

Their Workm m.

Present :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharnu.. . .Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of ihe Mr. S. Ghosh, Deputy Labour A d- Managcment viser with Mr. M. K. Das, Senior Labour Officer.

On behalf of Mr. P. Roy ChowJhury, Secretary of Workman the union with Mr. G. Mukhopa- dhyay, Committed Member of the union.

State : West Bengal. Industry : Port & Dock.

AWARD

By Order No. L-3201 l/1/93-IR(Misc.) dated 20-1-1994 and Corrigendum of even number dated 18-11-1998 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 10(1 )(d) and 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following ( ispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the following demands of the work- men of Calcutta Port Trust represented by Berth- ing Service Association is justified :

1. Termini'tion of the settlement dated 20-8-82

2. Suitable monetary compensation to them w.e.f. 1-8-82 on account of additional work done by them due to absenteeism, deple- tion of strength, failure of the management to abide by the recommendation of the Officer-on Special Duty, employment on National Holidays etc. etc. and

3. Setting out in dear terms the duties and res- ponsibilities of the Berthing Masters. If not what relief they are entitled to?"

appointed by the Ministry of Shipping & Trnnspor for the purpose of looking into the service conditions of the aforesaid categories of workmen. It has been stated that first of all the said memorandum of settlement is not in confinnity with the Rule 5K o I' the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules as it is neither in Form-H nor the copies of the same has been for- warded to the appropriate authorities as laid down. However, in course of the conciliation proceeding it was stated on behalf of the management that the said agreement was not made under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, it has been stated that this is a sufficient reason for termination of the agree- ment, which could not be acted upon. It has further been staled that inspite of the fact that tha said agree- ment was not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules and was th;refore illegal, the management taking advantage of certain recitals in the disputed agreement has exploited the concerned workmen by depriving them of their legitimate de- mands and rights. In this connection, certain in- stances have been cited. One Shri J. C. Agarwal, IAS was appointed by the Union Government to go into the matters relating to the pay and allowances of Class-I and Class-H officers of Major Ports and Dock Labour Boards. He had the status of Officer on Special Duty and he had submitted a report which was submitted to the Government of India and the recommendations in the report had to be followed and acted upon. But, for the purpose of taking undue advantage of the helplessness and ignorance on the part of the workmen and concealing certain facts by misrepresenting, the management got the signatures of the two office bearers of the Association who signed the agreement. But, consi- dering the nature of the things stated in the agree- ment, the workmen never accepted and agreed to the said agreement. It has been stated that in several matters the workmen concerned have been put to disadvantage as they have been denied the advantage of their weekly holidays, the national holidays and night waitage as wall a-i the payment of expenses made by such workmen in attending different shifts. It is to be noted that the concerned workmen have to work in three shifts and the persons attending the first shift have to be provided with p )cket expenses for the purpose of meeting their fo^d requirements etc. It is also stated that victualing allowance was also provided in the recommend tions of the O.S.D., but in the disputed agreement it has no t been in- corporated according to the recommendations and therefore the workmen have been put to loss and prejudicial situation and they have been financially penalised by way of reduction of their victualing allowance and proportionate deduction as con- templated in the aforesaid agreemsnt, ft has b;jn also staled that the pay HIM of tj lephonic .

2. The present reference has been made on the dispute raised by the union representing the cause of the employees of the Calcutta Port Trust (herein- after to be referred as CPT) designated as Berthing Masters and Assistant Dock Masters. The depart- ment is headed by the Director of Marine Depart- ment of the CPT and the section in which the aforesiad persons work is headed by one Harbour Master, Port. The dispute has been raised in the context of a memorandum of settlement arrived at between the management of CPT and the office bearers, such as, the President and the Vice president of the union, - nown as Calcutta Berthing Service Association on 20th August, 1982. The said Association, subse- quently, started questioning the origin and status of the agreement and made repeated demand-, to the i. anagement for termination of the impugned agree- ment, but when it could not be considered, a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and an order was passed on 03-07-1991 in which the Association was ordered to raise a dispute with the appropriate authority and accordingly the dispute was raised before the RLC(C), Calcutta vide a letter dated 22-07-1991. The conciliation proceed- ing started before the Assistant Labour Commis- sioner (C), Calcutta and when the Conciliation efforts could not materialise, a failure report was submitted to the Ministry of Labour and accordingly the reference was made. It has been stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the union that the said agreement was a result of the manipulations of the management in order to avoid recommendation-, and to deprive the workmen of the recommendations made by the Officer on Special Duty (O.S.D, in short)6305 pay full compensation in compliance with the orders within a stipulated peuod It has also been pcayecj that a direction be given to the management to im- r lenient the recommendations of the Officers on the special Duty without any local m'.erpre ation with tfket from 01-01-1979.

3 The management also filed a written state - ment and it has beet; stated that there aie four cate- gories of employees in the CPT classified as Class I, Class-U. C!ass-III an.l Class-lV cadre; and they arc guided by the Calcutta Port Employees (other tha i Ha'dia Dock Complex) (Recruitment, Seniority & Promotion) Regulation 1989 It has been state that there are posts of Assistant Dock Master in the scaJc of RJ. 3750—5430 and the posts of Berthing Mastci in the scaJe of 2400—5120 under the Har- bour Master and that thos^ posts are C'ass-I posts and, therefore, it has been stated that the two eate gories of Workman do no! belong ,o the caicgory of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the present reference cannot be termed as a ease of industrial dispute. It has further been stated that actually Shri J.C Agarwai, I.A S was appointed in 1977 as Officer on Special Duty in the Ministry of Shipping and Transpoit, Government of India and that he had submitted his report in 1978 and the recommendations jn the re- port were imp.'emenled in the CPT in terms of the letter of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport dated 16-01-1979. It is further stated that for the purpose of implementation of certain recommendations of the O S.D. and tht issues aiising out of introduc- tion of a system of granting a day off in the week to each Berthing Master in a staggerred manner, an agreement between Hie Calcutta Berthing Services Association and the Calcutta Port Trust was signed on 20th August, 1982. It is furthor stated that the said agreement was not a settlement under the Indus- trial Disputes Act and that the Calcutta Berthing Service Association have at no point of time denied the existence of the agreement. It is further stated that the terms and conditions of the agreements were implemented in full so far as the management of CPT is concerned and that both the Calcutta Bre'hing Service Association and the CPT had been acting on the basis of the said agreement in good faith. It is, therefore stated that since both thepartics to the agreement have b;e:i continuing to act as per the terms and conditions laid down in the agree- ment, .enr.s and conduions of he agreemen have become conditions ot service for the Berthinj? Mastc.s and Assistant Dock Masters. It is further stated that since the agreement in question was not a settlement under the Industrial Dispuics Act, the question of termination of the agreement as per the provisions of the Act does not arise. It is further stated that even it the agreement is have also been reduced to the disadvantage of the Workmen and daily allowance for attending the shift in absence of some absent employee of the category has also been reduced. It has been stated that ac- cording to the recommendation of the O.S.D. it was for the management to ascertain the shipping requirements reasonably and in advance; that the management was to ascertain minimum number of workmen needed to meet the necessary shipping requirement as pre-determined booking and the ma- nagement was also required to allow all the remain- ing workmen not needed for shipping to enjoy their national holiday and thereby not be employed on nati- onal holidays. The contention was that it would allow the workmen not needed to enjoy national holiday and to ensure that the exchequer did not buffer un- necessary and meaningless financial loss, but, in terms of the agreement all these advantages which were likely to accrue to the Government have been taken away. Because of this agreement the rest hours of the workmen working in shifts have also been disturbed and it tails upon the health of the workmen apart from causing strain to their financial position. It has also been stated that the said agree- ment was supposed to be effective from 1st August, 1982, but it was signed on 20th August, 1982 which also appears to be absurd and improper. Regarding Clause 7 of the agreement, it has been stated that it is wholly illegal and contempuous to the Hon'blc High Court of Calcutta in as much as it ignores the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. It has also been stated that Clause 7 of the agreement attempts to usurp power even higher than the Hon'ble High Court and it has been stated that though request was made to the management in this regard to revoke tho agreement, instead of rescinding the impugned agreement, the management withstood their ground by saying that irrespective of the illegal status of the agreement, since the parties had already acted upon the agreement in good faith the terms of the agree- ment had become the service condition of the work- men. It has been stated that this wuy the impugned agreement has made it obligatory on the part o[ the Berthing Masters to accept employment in place of a absentee which was in direct conflict with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and the work- men have also been deprived of their legitimate right. It is stated that it is surprising that the mana- gement inspite of these improprieties and illegalities continued to follow the instructions strictly to the prejudice or the workmen It has been stated that though the vacancies were there, the manugemeot did not try to fill up the vacancies a ad forced the present staff member^ of the union to work in differ ent shifts anci.thcr.eby they have veen deprived of ;he rest fae'lity. 'n this view of the matter, it has been prayed that the impugned, agreement be i mmcdiu- Lely terminated and the management be directed to6106 THE GAZETTE Ot INDTA : NOVEMBER 3. 2001/KARTTKA 12, 1923 [PARr>II--SEC. 3(ii)] dation 'work on weekly day of rest or holidays' as follows "having regaid to the relevant factors, I consider that if an officer is required to w©i-k as a part of pre-detei mined arrangement on the three national holidays, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October, he should be treated and compen- sated as he has worked on his weekly day of rest and 1 recommend accordingly" H is, therefoic, stated that the members of the Calcutta Berthing Service Association are compensated in accordance with the recommendations cf the O.S.D., if they arc to work for a full day or more than a full day of 8 hours on the three national holiday. Tt is also further stated that another reference is already pending adjudica- tion as Reference No. 28 of 1991 with the schedule as follows :

"Whether the action of the management in

refusing U-> conduct job analysis of the Berthing MdMas and Assistant Dock Masters and fixing the norms of their duties and alsu refusing to formulate/evolve the scheme for paying incentive is justified or not ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to '.'"

In this context it is further stated lhat the duties and responsibilities of the Berthing Masters have been clearly defined in the "Rules for guidance of the berthing officers" published as far back as in 1959 and therefore, it is stated that demand for setting out duties and responsibilities of the Berthing Ma&tcrs and Assistant Dock Masters do not arise. However, the statements of the union in their written statement have been denied parawisc, but it is not necessary to repeat it here.

4. So far as the evidence is concerned, it appears that one witness was earlier examined on behalf of the union on 09-01-1996, but his examination itself had remained inconclusive and subsequently he was given up and his deposition, therefore, stands expunged. WW-2 was later examined on 11-01-1999 and he has proved some documents including memo- randum of settlement Ext. W-l, copy of the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Ext. W-2, record notes of discussion between the management of CPT and Calcutta Berthing Seiviee Association dated 05-02-1991 regarding the settlement Ext. W-3. He has also further stated that he has no knowledge whether in accordance with the older of the Hon'ble High Court the Central Govt. directed the CPT to enter into a fresh settlement after terminating the settlement Ext, W-l. He also further stated that the union did not agree in the meeting with the manree- ment that the terms of the agreement were followed in good faith and also did not agree that the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement became service-condition of the concerned workmen and terminated !he condi¹ ions of seivice arising oui of ;he lerms and conditions ot the agreement would continue to exist t'JJ such time a lurthcr agreement replacing or modifying the same is anived at between the paities. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayei of the Associa- tion for termination of the settlement has no mciit:,. It is also further scaled that the demand for suitable monetary computation to the members ot the Cal- cutta Berthing Service Association is vague, without any bas>s and justification and the monetary com- pensations are being paid in terms of the agreement Therefore it is s ated that no demand for any su

o f the oidcr it a p p e ar ihat th<* mat

in the aforesaid Refcence N o. 70 of 1979 was that the union has prayed for compensation on account of the loss and suffering¹- of the workmen and has also prayed that a sche

"Whether the demand of the Berthing Masteis a^d Assistant D o ck Must<>;^ ol' the Cal>i>fU> Poit Tuisi for allowing them tirm* for tea and tiffin and for Tribunal directing the management to give the relief

as prayed for by the union. He stated in his cross-

examination that they have given a notice to the

changing cloths and for washing in between ihvir >.hift hours is justified. Tf so. t0 what relief ar? they entitled?" In this case also a similar point was raised management for termination cf the settlement, but

on behalf of fhe management and the matter was the management refused to terminate the settlement

decided as preliminary is^xte a rd after di^ci^sii g in a meeting in the Marine Department. He also

some case laws on the point, the Ti ibur.ai held that denied the suggestion that the management did not

refuse to terminate the settlement. He has further

stated that the management has failed to fill up the

vacancies consequent to retirement of the Berthir ;

Officers' and therefore, extra load of work had to be

is not fit to be retained, but because of the technic 1 difficulties the Hon'ble High Couit cou'd not pass any op'cr itself and directed Ihc appropriate authority, i.e., the Central Government in ihe Minis ry of Labour to pass an order in unequivocal term that the pesent memorandum of settlement should be revoked and the management should be directed to enter into a fresh settlement recording to law.

12. 1 feel that whatever has b.en observed by their Lordships in the aforesaid order is actually proper ard the direction of the Hon'ble High Court should have been followed in letter and spirit, but, unfortunately, it has not b"en done and unnecessary this leference has been made. It may be mentioned here that there is n^ provision in law to enable this Tribunal to pass an order of revocation of a settlement arrived at between the parties and therefor; an order to this effect cannot be passed. As a matter of fact, the power in this connection lies with the appropriate Government, i.e, the Central Government in the present ~ase under the provisions of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no such power has been v.icted in the Tribunal. However, I also reiterate that the memorandum of settlement in ques- tion is fit to be abandoned, revoked and rescinded at an early date and tlk, managem nt should at once take steps for arriving at a fresh settlement, otherwise the management should strictly follow the recom- mendations of the Officer on Special Duty approved by the Government of India also a, indicated earl'er and in no case the workmen should be deprived of their legitimate rights as per the recommendations of the Officer on Special Duty.

13. In the ciicumstance, the reference is accor- dingly answ:red and disposed of in teims of the ob- servations made above.

B.P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

The 25th September, 2001. Dated, Kolkata

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2001

S.O. 2982.—In pursuance of Secti-on 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award¹ of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bbubaneswar und^r the provision of th-i Industrial Di pules A<-t, 1947. The wron alleged that the memo* and cm is il'egal bocau'v it was not pxp'.'red in accordance with the aquiioircnl of lrw rnd under Rule 58 of the Industrial Di'pu'ts (Central) Rules ard tlv "efore it is not fit to be retained and should b? declared illegal and invalid and should be revoked On the other hand, it has been stated on behalf of the manage- ment that this memorandum of settlement docs not happen to be a settlement w d ^ r t he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, much controversy is required so far as the native of this settlement is concerned. It appears that this is the reason that is why the parties did not adduce unnecessary evidence on the point and cut short the matter. It appears that a settlement to be legally drawn up and finalised is to be in confirmity with RiOe 58 of the Industrial Dis- putes (Central) Ri'.les, 1957 and requirement of this Rule is lhat it is to bs signed by the employer as well as any officer of Ihe trade union of the workmen or by five representative* cf the woikmen authorised in this- behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the puipote. So far as the workman are concerned, they have challenged, this memorerdv.m on the ground that the officer who signed was not authorised, nor any such resolution was adopted by the union. It has also been pointed that such a memorandum has to be drawn up in Form—H which has rot been done, and the third requirement is that the copies of the memo- randum has to be sent to the Regional Labour Com- missioner, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi and. to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministiy of Labour, New Delhi. But, nothing of the kind had b"en done. Therefore, the settlement lacks the sanctity of a legal settlement. In this iegs'"d it is also important to note that when this matter was raised before the Hon'blc High Couit of Calcutta in a writ petition, an order was passed on 03-07-1991 by a Division Bench in which it was observed that it was not proper for the parties to challenge 6309 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Purunapani Lime Stone & Dolomite Quarry of Raw Materiail Division, SAIL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-10-2001.

[No. L-29O12|126194-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNriXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COITRT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri S. K. Dhal, OS.TS (Sr. Branch), Fres'dmg Officer, C.G.T.T.-C"ai-Labour Court/ Bhubaneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 10J2001 Dated of Conclusion of the hearing 7th Seplembei, 2001

Date of Passing Award-26th Sept. 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of The Asst. General Manager Purunapani Lime Stone & Dolomite Quarry of Ravi Material Division, SAIL, P.O. Purunapani, Dist. Sundargarh-770 035. . .1st Party-Met.

' \ ND

Their Workman, represented through the Secretary, Rourkela Shramik Sangh, P.O. Purunapani, Dist. Sundargarh-770 035 ..2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES :

Shri R. C. Tripathy, A.C.L.O. .. For the 1st Party-ManagemeiV.

Shri N C. Mohanty, Advocate ..For the 2nd ^arty-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have re- ferred the follow i"e. di'-.pu+e for f>rJiudic-t+on vHe tV-;r Order No. L-29O12il26j94-TR(Misc), dated.12-7-95:

"Whether the action of the Management of Purunapani Limestone & Dolomite Ouarry of Raw Mate-rial Division, SAIL, in super- annuating Shri Ramiropal S;ngh with effect from 31-8-1994 while the dispute for wrong recording of date of birth was pending before the Conciliation Officer i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Ro*vkela was justified ? If not, to what relief the work- man is entiled to ?"'

3326 GI'2001—1?

2. The case of the Unioa (herein-after called as the 2nd Party) may be ssafed in brief. One Shri Ramgopail Singh (Witness No. I) examined on behalf of the 2nd Party joined in the services under the 1st Party-Management as Pump Opera'or on temporary basis in the year 19-60. His service was re£"ilarized in J'anuajry 1961 in P-I Scale. He was superannuate on 31-8-1991. According to ,he 2nd Party the actual Date of Birh of Ralngopal Singh was 7-3-1943 but it was wrongly recorded as 15-8-36. So ) e made xep-esenta+ion to the 1st Party- Manugemant for correction of his Da e of Birth v hich was rejected and he was retired. The 2nd Party- Union has raised his dispute and failure, of the lccon- ciliation this reference has bsen made.'

3. The 1st Par.y-Manaajement m their Written Statement has pleaded that, the 2nd Party joined as Fumz> Driver from 23-1-1961. As per the practice all *he employees while joining in the services were ask'Jd to submit their, particulars in a Form called the descriptive roll, declaring their name, date of birth, educational qualification and etc. On the basis of such declaration the date of birth of the 2nd Party was receded as 15-8-1936. But inadvertently he date of bfcfh was wronely recorded in his service ree'ster. When if was found the 2nd Part v-Workman was inti- mated about the non-acceptance of the erroneous date of birth entered into the service book. When the 2nd Party-Workman made a representation the Management with a view to afford him ?

4. On the plead

I. Vhether the reference is maintainable ?

II. Whether the action of the Management of Purunapani Lime Stone and Dolomite Quarry in superannuation Shri Rameopal Sin eh with effect From 31-8-1994 while the disnu'e fox wrong lecording of date of birth Was pending befor=> the Conciliation Officer i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioned C) Rourkela was justified ?

III. If not to what relief the Workman is entitled to?

5. Oil behalf of the 2nd Party-Workman one wit- ness hat been exalmined and some documents like Ext 1 ; nd Ext-2 have 1-ecn exhibited. On the other hand Thx Management has examined two witnesses and exhibited a number of documents in support of their stand6310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER ^ 2J301/KAR11KA 12, 1923 [PA^t IL-$B<;, 3.0D] FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. I

6. No materials have beoi placed on behalf of the 1st FaTty-Mangement ihat ths reference is not main- tainable. The dispute has l*een raised by the Union on beValf of the Workman. So in my opinion, the reference is maintainable. This Issue is answered in favour t ? the 2nd Par y-Workman.

ISSUE NO. II

9. I have already pointed out that the Xerox copy of ihe School Leaving Certificate produced try "the 2nd Party-Workman varies from euch other. No ori- ginal certjneflte has been produced by the Workman. The fact that an enquiry was conducted for determining the daCe of bir:h of the 2nd Party-Workman on receipt of the representation has not been disputed by the 2nd Party-Workman. But he had not attended the en- quiry. So it can be said no reasonable opportunity was given to the 2nd Party-Workman. When the da'e of birth of the workman was re-fixed. Moreover the 2nd Party-Workman had not taken shelter before the Civil Court for declaration of his date of birth. It has been further submitted on behailf of the Management that, the claim of the 2nd Party-Workman that his da'e of birth is 7-3-1943 does not appear to be probable because if that is accep'ed it would appear that he was under BQO when he joined in the service. I find much force in this contention. The 2nd Party-Work- man has himself stated in his evidence that he joined m the year 1960. Jf his date of birth is accepted as 7-3-1943 his age at the time of entering into service is about 17 years. No person below the age of 18 years can be appointed. So, I aeTce with the submission made on nehalf of the 1st Party-Manage- ment that the dpfe of birtn recorded as t"r the decla- ration of the 2nd Party-Workman was 15-8-1936 and he was rightly superannuated on 31-8-1994 The Management has also nrodnced the materials (Ext.-O^ to satisfv the Tribunal that the Principal of the School where the 2nd Party-Workman staged to have been studied has lntim?j*ed that both the Ext-1 and A are not genuine. In the above circumstances in my opinion, the acHon of the M Pnrtv-Manacement in suDerannnptinir the 2nd Partv-WorVman with pffect from 31-R-19Q4 is !e"al and justified The rjendine nf t>i,o re-^onf-iUntinn rwi-n-pPfi'T* befoTe fhf* Ass'^tant Labour Cr>mmic"iioner fRrvurVei^O would be of no tround rn allow the ''nH Partv-WorVmnrf tn continue into ci-rvicp wen after he was suncrarvimti-.-i nn 3 i-8-lgod Hence this Issue is answered in favour of the Management.

9. ISSUE NO. I ll

7. The- case of the ' Ind Party-Workman is that actually his date of birth is 7-3-1943 but wrongly it has been recorded m his Service Book as 15-8-36. He has produced the Xerox copy of the. School Leaving Certificate which has been exhibi- ted in this case as Ext.-T. No explanation has been offered as to what happened to the orieinal. Th;s Ext.-I is not the duplicate certificate issued to the 2nd F'c|rty-Workman. No doubt this 'Ext.-l dis- closes 'hat the date of birth of the 2nd Party-Work- man is 7-3-1943 but this entry has been made in another ink causing doubt about the date. Ext.-C is the copy of the descnp ive roll of the 2nd Party- Workm?jn. In this the date of birth has been men- tioned as 15-8-193(i. In the Column meant tor educational qualification nothing has been men- tioned. The Management informed the 2nd Party in the year 1976 that his date of birth is 15-8-1936 but not 7-3-1943. In the application proforma for medical card the date of bir'h of the 2nd Party- Workman is mentioned as, 15-8-1936. The 2nd Partv-Workman in his cross examination he has ad- mitted that he enclosed his School Lea\ine Certifica'e Cwrpch has been m?rked ps Ext.-A) when he made his representation (Ext.-2). There is difference Ijetween the Ext.-l and Ex^.-A. The Ext.-l produced by the Workman in which the date of birth has been men- tined as 7-3-1943. Tn the Ext-A which was also produced by the Workman in which the date of birth has been indicated ?B 9-3-1943. I am unable to understand how tvso types of School Leaving Certifi- cate can be granted to one person. In my opinion, the documents exhibited in Ex:t.-1 and Ext -A appears *o be suspicious documents.

In view of mv above findings in reswet of Issue No TI, the 2nd Party-Workman is not entitled for any relief.

10 Hence the reference is answered¹ accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

S. K. DITAL, Presiding Officer6311 New Delhi, the 12th October. 2001 S.O. 2983.—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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9th October, 2001.

[No. L-43012/21/89-IRCM)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN'\ III MAiN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated, 28th September, 2001

PRESENT :

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

COMMON AWARD

C.R. No. 5/90

I PARTY

The President, Bharat Gold Miners' Association, No. 545, Punjabi Line, Oorgaum P.O., K.G.P.-563120. (Advocate—Sathyanarayana).

II PARTY

The Managing Director, Bharath Gold Mines Ltd., Oorgaum (PO), K.G.F.-563120. (Advocate—Shri A. S. Boppana).

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has re ferred this dispute vide order No. L-43012/I9/89-TR (Misc.) dated 29flh January, 1990 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Subramani, Rock Drill Operator, P.E. No. 12*4617 of Cham- pion Reef Mine, Bharath Gold Mines Ltd.. K.G.F. on charges of theft of employer's property is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"

C.R. No. 12/90

I PARTY

The President, Bharat Gold Miners' Association. No. 545, Punjabi Line, Oorgaum (P.O.), K.G.F.-563120.

(Advocate—Satyanarayana).

II PARTY

The Managing Director, Bharath Gold Mines Ltd., Oorgaum (PUj, K.G.F.-563120.

(Advocate—Shri A. S. Boppana).

The Central Government by exercising the powers conterred by clause (d) ot Sub-section 2A ot becnon 10 ot the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has rcieired this dispute vide'order JNo. L-43Ui2/2i/8y-iK(,JViii.c) aated ibtn February, 1990 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Rajoo, Pack Wall Maistry, P.E. No. 082238 ot Champron Reel Mine, Bharath Gold Mines Ltd., K.G.F. on charges of theft ol employer's property is justinabie ? It not, to what leuef he is entitled to ?"

2. These two cases arise out of the same incident and dispute is raised which is referred rior disposal.

3. Two workmen were working with the manage- ment and the allegations are that they committed thelt. Enquiry was conducted and on the basis ol En- quiry Report they were dismissed from service. Th^ie- lore Industrial Dispute is raisea.

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

5. Before I proceed further I would like to men- tion that these 2 references were disposed off by this Tribunal by its order dated 18th June, 1999. The workmen took up the matter before the High Cnurt of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka allow- ed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter for fresh disposal as per directions.

6. After remand both parties appeared and adduced evidence. Arguments were heard.

7. One more development is that workman Mr. Raju in CR. No. 12/90 has expired during the pendency of the proceedings and his LRs are brought on record.

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

9. These two workmen were working with the man- agement. They worked honestly, sincerely and dili- gently. The management issued charge sheet against these two'workmen contending that they were indulged in theft of Rich GBQ pieces and one Kg powder. The allegtions are not correct. Charge Sheet is not correct.

10. Regarding enquiry it is said that 1,'he Domestic Enquiry which was held from 10-11-1988 to 10-1-89 is not correct and full opportunity was not given to the workmen to defend themselves. The charge sheet is very vague. The notice of enquiry did not accom- pany any documents and the workmen had no oppor- tunity to defend themselves. Many other allegations are made regardmg enquiry.

11. It is the further case of the workmen that the action of the management is not correct. It is seen from the records l Jut both the workmen have filed separate Qaim Statement but the grounds are similar.

12. The case of the management in brief is as follows :

13. It is the case of the management that Charge Sheet was issued to the workmen as they were indulg- ed in an act of dishonesty. The explanation given by the workman was not correct. Enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper. The manage- ment is fully justified in dismissing these workmen from service because charges are proved.

14. Regarding enquiry it is said that full opportu- nity was given to the workmen and the enquiry was conducted properly. All the allegations made by the workmen are not correct. All the proceedings were translated and the Enquiry Officer gave full chance- to cross examine the witnesses. The property was under police custody and the magazor was proved Management tor these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

15. It is s^en from the records that this tribunal by its order dated 19th November, 1992 passed orders on Preliminary issue holding that the Domestic En- quiry is not fair and proper. Thercajter the manage- ment was asked to prove ths misconduct before this tribunal.

16. Management in order to prove that the Domes- time Enquiry is fair and proper, examined MW1. After the finding of Preliminary Issue management, in order to prove the misconduct independently before this Tribunal examined MW2, K. Balaraman, MW3, Shri Meghanathan, MW4, Joginder Singh and MW5, Shri Natarajan.

17. Before I proceed further, let me slate that MW2 and MW3 were cross examined at length. MW4 and MW5 were not cross examined and these work- men aggreived by this, took up the matter before the High Court of Karnataka and the matter is remanded with the direction to give full opportunity for the parties. In other words the opportunity was to be given for cross examining MW4 and MW5 and fur- ther evidence if adduced has to be recorded. Accord- ingly after remand MW4 and MW5 were cross exa- mined. Management examined one witness, MW6, Thereafter one of the workman who is alive and the LR of late Shri Rajoo got examined themselves.

18 I have heard the arguments I have carefully perused the entire material before me. I have read the decisions cited by the counsels appearing for the parties.

. '

19. Admittedly when the Domestic Enquiry is held as not lair and proper the management has to prove the misconduct independently before this Tribunal.

20. It is true that the standard of proof for proving theft in a Criminal Court is that the guilt has to be proved beyond doubt. But so far as these proceedings are concerned I am of the opinion that there must be atleast prirna facie evidence against these workmen to piuvo the misconduct i.e. the offence ot theft.

21. Let us scrutinise the evidence before us strictly with the documents.

22. At the very outset I am of the opinion that the evidence ot MW2 to MW6 is not sulhcient to prove theft as alleged by the management against these two workmen because there is no prima iacie evidence to prove theft against these workmen. It is in the cross examination and also in the evidence of the manage- ment witnesses that no articles i.e. the properties alleged to have been stolen is recovered from the pos- session of these workmen. The evidence of Mr. Bairam will not throw any light except saying that he caught hold of Rajoo, the deceased workman.

23. It is in the cross examination of the witnesses of the management that there was no full light and only head lamps were used. It is in the cross exami- nation of MW5 that he saw 10-15 workers working there and he does not know anything sbout Criminal case. In view of this cross examination it is difficult to believe the evidence of K. Bairam to fix the offence of theft against these workmen.

24. For the reasons best known to the management Mr. Roshanlal is not examined. According to manage- ment. Roshanlal is the material witness. During the course of arguments it was submitted by the learned counsel for the management that Roshanlal has taken Voluntary Retirement and his whereabouts are not known.

25. In my opinion in the given circumstances this explanation is not proper. The management definitely could have secured Roshanlal. Balram has stated in his cross examination that Roshanlal searched two workmen and found nothing. This is very material. It is in the cross examination of Bairam that head light was also not used by them.

26. Taking all this into consideration it is difficult to believe the evidence of Shri Bairam. Again the evi- dence of Meganathan, MW3 is not helpful to prove theft against these workmen. MW3 says in his cross examination that he did not go to the underground immediately after he received the telephonic message. In other words he goer to the spot afterwards. All the witnesses have only said that the names of these workmen were ascertained afterwards. So also is the evidence of MW5. He also says that Roshanlal search- ed Subramani and found nothing. Only this would go to show that there is no prima facie evidence against these workmen to prove theft directly.

27. MW6 is also examined after remand. His evi- dence is not relevant to prove theft and misconduct. His evidence is that the value of seized article is Rs. 808. I have scrutinised the evidence to see whe- ther prima facie misconduct is proved but in my opi- nion misconduct is not proved and the evidence before me is not convincing to the extent which is required for our purpose as stated earlier.

28. It was argued by the learned counsel for ihe first party that the management had filed Police Cose and the workmen were acquitted by the competent criminal court and in support of this, the workman have produced the judgement of the competent cri- minal court in CC No. 621/89. The learned couusel for tlhe first party also relied 2 decisions viz. AIR 1999 SC 1416 and WP No. 28105/1998 of the High Court of Karnataka. I have read them carefully.

29. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decisions and the evidence before me, I am of the opinion that the same is not sufficient to prove theft. The competent Criminal Court has acquitted these workmen.

30. In otherwards charge of theit is not proved. Against this learned counsel appearing for the man- agement relied decision reported in 2000 II LLJ page 13699. The facts of the above decision are quite different from the facts of the case on hand. Because in the instant case misconduct itself is not proved. I have given my best consideration to the evidence before me and I am of the opinion that the misconduct is not proved by the management.

31. It was submitted by the learned counsel appear- ing for the management and the workmen that Bharat Gold Mines is closed and even the present workers are not getting any salary and litigation is pending before the High Court of Karnataka. It is also clear that one of the workman, Mr. Rajoo is no more.

32. In view of the finding given me that the mis- conduct is not proved, in my opinion ends of justice will meet if the order of dismissal is converted into order of Compulsory Retirement so that some mone- tary benefits which have accrued can be given to workman, Shri Subramani and the LRs of workman, late Mr. Rajoo. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following Order :

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. The order of dismissal is converted into one of Compul- sory Retirement with the direction to give monetary benefits to the workman and the LRs of workman, late Mr. Rajoo if they are entitled for the same.

(Dictated to PA transciibed by her corrected and signed by me on 28th September. 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

6313, New Delhi, the 8th October, 2001 S.O. 2984.—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 Indusrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of E.C.L. and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 5-10-2001.

[No. L-20012|15[92-IR(C-I)J

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas,

Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE NO. 74 OF 1993 PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Kapasara Colliery of M|s. E.C.L.

AND

Their Workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman.—None.

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

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad; the 21st Septemb:r, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has6514 THE GAZETTE OF JNDU : NOVEMBER 3, itJDlMAftTlKA 12, 1923 fPAirr It—Sue. 3(ii)J baseless and for which they are not entitled to get any relief.

'

4. The points for decision in this reference referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012] 15|92-LR. (Coal-I), dated, the 28th May, 1993.

are :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kapasara Colliery in denying Wages to Sri Pradip Kumar Shaw and 36 others in fair, just and legal ? If not, what relief the con- cerned workmen are entitled to ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS "Whether the action of the management of Kapasara Colliery in denying wages to Sri Pradip Kumar Shaw and 36 others in fair, just and legal ? If not, what relief the .concerned workmen are entitled to ?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen in

brief as per W.S. is as follows :—

It has been submitted by the concerned workmen that on 11-12-90 they reported to their duties in their respective shifts at Kapasara Colliery with a view to work there but they could not resume their duties as the villagers of the locality started agitating there with the claim of their employment. They con- tinued such agitation upto 14-12-90. The con- cerned workmen submitted that accordingly they could not do their duties from 11-12-9U to 14-12-90 and duly reported the matter to the management but the management in spite of knowing all the situation did not pay wages for those days < intentionally and arbitrarily though they had no fault on their part. Accordingly an industrial dispute was raised by them before the ALC(C) Dhanbad for conciliation but there too the conciliation failed and the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour.

5. There is no dispute to hold that the con- cerned workmen were the employees of the management. The only dispute which has been raised here that on 11-12-90 when they went to work were obstructed by the local villagers due to their agitation and in this way they attended their duties upto 14-12-90 but on al}, days they were restrained from doing their duties. Accordingly they re- ported the matter to the management but the management without accepting their conten- tion refused to pay any wages during the said period. Therefore the question which has been cropped up here is whether the con- cerned workman went on duty during the period mentioned above. It is admitted fact that there was agitation by the local villagers for their employment. It is the contention of the management that the concerned workmen have taken up this plea in order to protect their interest. In course of hearing the con- cerned workmen in spite of getting ample opportunities to prove their case did not con- sider necessary to adduce any evidence. No cogent paper is also forthcoming before the Court to the effect that they actually went to duty but they were refrained from work due to intervention of the local villagers. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I find reason to believe that the concerned workmen have failed to establish that during the said period i.e. from 11-12-90 to 14-12-90 they went to the place of work. Unless and until! this fact is estab- lished the concerned workmen are not entitl- ed to get any relief. In the result, the con- cerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief which they have prayed for. Accord- ingly following Award is rendered :—

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all claims and allegations which the concerned workmen asserted to in their W.S. It is the specific claim of the management that the concerned workmen did not report to their duties from 11-12-90 to 14-12-90 intentional- ly and without giving any intimation. The management admitted that there was an agi- tation over employment by the local villagers but it was not the cause at all for the con- cerned workmen to remain absent from duties. The management submitted that the concerned workmen takine the opportunity of agitation of the local villagers submitted that they went on duties during those days but could not perform their duties there. Ac- cordingly the management submitted that the claim of the concerned workmen is absolutely

"The action of thfe management of Kapasara Colliery in denying wages to $n Pradip Kumar Shaw and 36 others is fair, just and legal ? The6515 concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 8th October, 2001

S.O. 2985.—In pursuance of Section 17, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award 'of tho Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, 2 Dnanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-10-2001.

fNo. L-2OO12|161|9O-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

REFERENCE NO. 38 OF 1991

PARTIES :

Employers In relation to the management of Sudamdih Area of M|s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate, STATE : Jharkhand

INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st September, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry njf Labour, in exercise of the Dowers confened on them under Section 10rl)(d} of the T D. Act, 1947 his referred the following dispute to this Tnhnnni for ndjudlcation vide their Order No L-20012/161/ 90-I.R (Conl-T), dated, the 1st February, 1991.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sudamdih, District Dhanbad in not providing employment to Shri Sudhir Bouri, eldeat-jon and dependant of late Rupa Bouri as per para 9.4.2 of NCWA-III is justified? If. not, to what relief the. worfanau is entitled?" 2. The case of the concerned wqrtowa in brief ii aj, follows :—

It has been submitted that Rupa Bouri was in employment under Sudamdih Project of BCCL and, died on 15-3-1983. After the death of said Rupa Bouri a claim petition was filed by his widow Smt Pramila Bouri for her employment on compassionate ground. Thereafter Pramila Bouri re- linquishing hen claim for employment submitted a^ applica- tion before the, management for providing employment to Sudhir Bouri, the eldest son of Rupa Bouri and in this regard. He submitted an affidavit before the management. It has been alleged that violating the specific provision laid down in NCWA the management refused to provide any employment to her son Sudhir Bouri illegally and arbitrarily. As a tesult a petition was submitted by the concerned workman befoie the ALC(C) for conciliation but to no effect. As a result, the present reference was made before this Tribunal.

3. The mnnagement on the contrary after filing W.W.- cum-rejoinder havo denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in the W.S, It has been submitted by the management that Rupa Bouri left his employment voluntarily ori 18-7-80 and stopped reporting for his duty from that date. He abandoned his service with effect from the said date and did not make any communication with the management. The management further submitted that the said Rupa Bouri abandoned this service with his own volition and for which they did not consider it fit to take any disciplinary action against him. The management further submitted that some time in the year 1984 one ladv approach- ed the management posing herself to be the widow of late Rupa Bouri, and produced a medical certificate purported to be the death certificate of her husband Rupa Bouri under- taking that he died on 15-3-83 and claimed for her employ- ment as per provision laid donw in, NCWA. Thereafter she relincniished her claim and placed the claim employment for her eldest son Sudhir Bouri. The management submitted that such prayer of the concerned workman could not be consi- dered becaire of the fact that relevant provision of NCWA was not applicable in such cace as tho said Rupa Bouri was not expired in course of his service under the management. Accordingly the management have piayed for passing an Award setting aside the prayer of the concerned workman.

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

"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Protect of M/s. BCCL. P.O. Sudamdih District Dhanbad in not providing employment to Shri Sudhir Bouri, eldest son and dependant of late . Rupa Bouri as per para 9.4.2 of NCWA-III is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" "

DECISION WITH REASONS

5, The management in order to substantiate their claim examined one witness i.e. MW-1. The said MW-1 who hap- pened to be the Dv. P.M. during his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman Rupa Bouri left his service on 18-7-80. Accordingly this witness disclosed that as per pro- vision of law they could not consider the claim of the concerned workman for employment. Considering the evi- dence of the management and also considering the facts dis- closed in the W.S. submitted by the parties I find no "dispute to hold that Rupa Bouri was an employee under the manrige- ment. According to the concerned workman the sa;d Runa Bouri dird on 15-3-f3 and as a result ofwhich he submitted a petition for his employment being eldest' son of the de-eased on compassionate ground as per para 9.4 2 of NCWA-TTI. The management refused to give any employment to him taking the ground thnt the said Rurm Bouri voluntarily desert- ed his service with effect from 18-7-80 and for wheh on and from that date he was no longer ^n emnlovee under the management. The management submitted further that emn- loyment of the legal heir of the deceased as per para 9.4.2 of NCWA-IIT could be provided if the said enmlovec dies in harness. Disclosing this fact the management submitted that the said provisions of NCWA is ngt anolioflble- in the instant case as fhe said Rupa ttouri voluntarily deserted his service 04 ptid from 18-7*80 i.e. long before his ileath. To rebut, this claim the concerned wokruan did not consider necessary >"ft> adduce ap- evidence in spite pf getting ample6316( i THE GAZETTE OF INDIA"; NOVEMBER"i,~ 2001/KARTIKA 12, 19-23-.- ---IR&Rf jd^8BOrr3 opportunities. "Accordingly at tlie juncture I do not ndt any scope to disbelie\e the evidence of MW-1 who deposed before the Tribunal in relation to the facts in question on oath.

6. As the concerned workman inspite of getting opportu- nities failed to avail of the same I do not find any reason to disbelieve the submission of the management relating to the desertion of the service by Rupa Bouri with effect from 18-7-80. Accordingly relying on this fact it can be said veiy clearly that para 9.4.2 of NCWA-III in the matter of con- sideration of employment of the dependant of the deceased cannot be considered. In the circumstances the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of Sudamd'h Project cf M|s. BCCL, P.O. Sudamdih, District Dlunbad in not providing employment to Shri Sudliir Bouri, eldest son and dependant of late Rupa Bouri as per para 9.4.2 of NCWA-III is justified? Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B.BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 8th October, 2001

S.O. 2986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial D sputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes " theh award of the Central Govern went Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- plo> ei s in relation to the management of CCL and their wiKman, which was received by the Central Goven.- m it on 5-10-2001.

[No. L-20012|187|94-IR(C-D]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

r - o rp XHF CPNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD- PR'LSFNT:

Reference No. 74 of 1995

PARTIES :

Fm"'ovr" in relation to the management of Karo Special Project of M -. CCL and their workman.

APPFARANCES :

On h^pif of the workman: Shri K. Chakravorty, Advocate. On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi. Advocate. State : Jharihand.

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad. the 18th September, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of Inda, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the poweis conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vids their Order No. L-20012(187)| 94-I.R. (Coal-J), dated, the 26th April, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"WhclKr the action of the management of Karo Spe- c al Projsct|Konar A A. of C C L. in denying th3 assessment of ihe age of Sh-ri Bharat S ngh by the Ape* Medxal Board is justified ? If not, to what relief the wiokman is en"itled ".

2. The ca-e of the concerned workman as per W.S. ii brif f ,s as follows :—

The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he was a permanent workman working under the management since 1973. He admitted that the management served ser- vice excerpt to him showing his date of birth as 19-9-1933. Admitting this fact he disclosed that as he was illiterate he could not appreciate the actual fact relating to his date of birth recorded by the Clerk of the colliery illegally and arbi rarily because of the fact that if his date of birth is taken into consideration in relation to the date of birth of his father in that case there will be a difference of only 4 years of age in betwen him and his father. Acco'dingty he submitted representation several times with a view to rectify h;s date of birth or to send h'm to Apex Medical Board for determination of his age but his attempt by all such repre- sentations went in vein. On the contrary the management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him with effect from 9-3-93. Accordingly he raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C), Ha7aribagh which reulted reference to this Trbunal. Accordingly the concerned workman has prayed for passing necessary Award directing the management to refer the concerned workman to the Company's Medical Boaid for assessment of his age and further also for hts reinstatement with all full back wages.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum- rejoindcr has denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. management submitted that the concerned workman was superannuated with effect from 19-9-93 on the basis of date of birth re- corded in different records of the company as 19-9-33. The present demand for rectification of date of birth on th1d that the petition filed by the concerned work- m-ri iw ni basis at all and foi which the same is liable to be rejected.

4 The po:nts for decision in this reference are :—

"Wi"'Hrr the action of the management of Karo Snec'al Proiect/K^nar A A of CCL in d^nv'ng the asse s- m°pt of *he age of Shri Bharat S'ngh bv the Ai<>\ Med'cal Bovd is iu"*ifi("d ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

5 DFCISION WITH REASONS

It .is S^PTI that th° instant reference was registered in the vear 1995 Record"'further shows' that mspite of giving several chances the concerned workman excepting filing WS d:c* not6317 New Delhi, the 8th October 2001 consider necessany to lake any fuhlher step to justify his claim. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was an employee of the management. The concerned workman has raised this dispute at the fag end of his service career disclosing the fact that the management wrongly recorded his dale of Birth in the Form B register. He disclosed that if his age and the age of his father is taken into consideration in trust case it will be seen that there was a gap of only four years wlvch. appears to be absolutely impracticable. He dis- closed tl-ut hi'-pite of bringing the matter to the notice of the management they refused to send his before the Apex Medical Boaul for determination of his age. He admitted that he receVed service excerpt duly served by the management but as he is illiterate he could not assess the facts disclosed in the suid service excerpt including his date of birth. The management categorically submitted that it was a plea taken by the concerned workman with a view to enjoy more benefit illegally and arbitrarily. They submitted that the Form B Register is a statutory Register and when an employee is started working under the management his all particulars in- cluding date of birth are recorded in that Form B Register. Therefore, the management fuither submitted that not only in the Form B Register but also in all other records the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 19-9-33. Accordingly after completing the age of 60 years he was ri?htlv M'.p-riinnuted with effect from 19-9-93.

S.O. 2987.—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, 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-10-2001.

[No. L-200!2|203l91-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas. Presidn* Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Disnute under Sec-

tion 10(l)(d) of the J.D. Act.: 1947.

Reference No. 6 of 1992

PARTIES :

Employers in relation of the management of

M|s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : Shir B. Josht,

Advocate,

STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhambad, the 20th September, 2001 6. The dispute relating to the age was raised by the con- cerned workman. Accordingly onus lies on the concerned workmein to establish his claim. It is the specific claim that there was difference of 4 years gap in between his date of b'rih and the date of birth of his father but inspite of getting several opportunities the concerned workman did not consider necessary to prdouce a single scrap of paper in support of this claim. Naturally just on the basis of submission made in the W.S. I do not find any scope to accept the sami. Form B Register is a statutory document which is maintained by the management as per provision of law. From the Form B Register it transpires that the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 19-9-93. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman received his service excerpt in the year 1987 but at that time he did not raise any dispu'e relating to his date of birth recorded in the service excerpt. The plea of illiteracy I consider is not the ground to be accepted. If it is so, the concerned workman is liable to explain why at the fag end of his superannuation raised this dispute and how he came to know that date of birth in the service excerpt as well as in the Form B Register and other statutory record' were recorded wrongly by the management. It is the contention of the management that his date of birth wa<= not 19-9-33 but the concerned workman is silent actually what was his actual dafe of birth. He did not consider neces- sary to adduce any evidence in relation to his exact date of birth. His only contention is that inspite of submitting re- presentation the management did not refer his to the Medical Board for determination of his age. This submission I think finds no merit at all. unless and untill the concerned work- man was able to convince the management about the dis- crepancy made in recording his date of birth iA different renders. He al"o did not consider necessary to produce a single scrap of authentic document wherein his actual date of hijth was receorded No satisfactory explanation is on the cart of the concerned workman forth comina whv he made such long delav in raisins this dispute. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances and also in abspnep of cosent document I do not find snv sufficient eround^to believe the contention of the concerned workman in rh° matter of dispute raised bv him relating to his date of hirih. T cons:der that thi* management did not commit any/ iHf> r"-;nc'n1<'s of natural iii"t>cp Accord'noly the concerned workman •<' nni entitled to set any relief. In the result, the fo'lowinp Award is rendered :—

AWARD

"T'h" •"-••'on "f the miti9dpm

B, FJSWAS Presidta" Officer

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1")- (d) of the T.D. Ac*., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(203)'<)M.R.(Coal-1), dated, the Nil.

337.6 GI'2fl0l—19.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Dahibari Colliery of Mis. Bbart Coking Coal Ltd. in denvng employment to the depen- dent husband of the workman Smt. Bahumuni Manjhian S.F. Loader under Voluntary Retirement Scheme is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled¹ ?"

4. The points for decision in this reference are:— "Whether the action of the management of Dahiban Colliery ot M s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in denying employment to tlhc depenacnl husband ui the waikman Smt. Bahumuni Manjhian S.F. Leader under Voluntary Retirement Scheme is justified ? If not, t owhat ick,,'f the workman is en- titled ?"

2. The case of the con.ce.incd workman as per

W.S. in brief is as follows :—

DECISIONS WITH REASONS5319 management had no basis at all. In support of this fact the concerned workman did not consider necessary to show that her husband was below 45 years at the time of her retirement Therefore, considering all as- pects I hold that the concerned workman has failed to substantiate her claim beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly I hold that the management did not com- mit any illegality or impropriety refusing employment to the husband of the concerned workman. I also hold that it did not violate principles of natural justice. Ac- cordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered:—

"The action of the management of Dahibari Col- liery of M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in denying employment to the dependant husband of the workman Smt. Bahumuni Manjhian S.F. Loader under Voluntary Re- tirement Scheme is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer ?rffe^?ft, 8 srsfgsrc, 2001

2RT . ?rr. 2 9 8 8.—?fnfrfoff ft^T? srfsrfaJTflr, 1947 (1947 ^T 14) sf?t 9TCT 1 7% 3TRWT H, %fji*T ^x^n sft. sff. tft. t^r. % jRsra'er % && fWrspfft fsRT? *i % ^T srwrc sfrefffap srftwTT 2, sprar? 5-10-2001 ^PT STO gSTT "TT I

[#. rr^r-20012/214/91-mf SfR (^t-I)]

o?r.rr?r. w i, w^ srfar New Delhi, the 8th October, 2001 S.O. 2988.—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, No. 2, Dhanbud as shown in the Arnicxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-10-2001.

[No. L-200i2|214[91-IR(C-I)l

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer. " In the matter of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Ad, 1947.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of Mis. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman.—Shri B. N. Singh, Secretary.

On behalf of the Employers.—Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate. STATE : Jhaikhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated. Dlrmbad, the 18th September, 2001¹

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exerche 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 adjudica- tion vide their Order No. L-20012(214)/9l-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 21st Sep.ember, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M,s. BCCL in promoting Shri R. N. Banerjce, to the post of Tech. Grade-A Accountant w.e.f. 23-6-90, and subsequently levtrting him, is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled to ?•'

2. The case of the concerned workman!union ac- cording to the W.S. in brief is os follows :—

9. Under the relevant piovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, it a workman who worked tor 240 days in 12 cekndar months in the same capacity, is to be treated in continuous service. In the case in hand, Naik admits in-cross-examination para, 25, that he worked in the bank as a temporary employee, with break in service. According to him, he worked only as a messenger. Letter of the bank dtd. 13-4-99, pg. 33 (Exhibit-12) shows some days he worked as a messenger and other days as a coolie, during the year 1992, 1993 and 1995. Pay sheet is filed on record also indicate to that effect. This goes to show that Naik did not work iin one and the same position, with the bank and that sometimes he woiked in leave vacancy[adhoc basisjdajly -wages which indicates that he was not in continuous service.

10. It is in the evidence of the bank Manager that Naik worked for more than 240 'days in the year 1992'and¹' 1995. He was discontinued on 6-4-97. As per Section 25-B, the v/orkman should have com- pleted 240 days within'a block of 12 calendar months commencing backward from the date of alleged ter- mination. Record shows that he had not worked 240 days in the same capacity in the preceding 12 calen- dar months from the dace of his discontinuance. Their LoTdsM.ps of the Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 3657 iuled "the dajly wage employee whose services were engaged on the basis of need of work, teimination of such employee cannot be construed to be retrenchment." 11. Mr! Gaonkar, Representative of Mr. Naik inviting attention of this tribunal to the Written Sub- missions (Ex-34) submitted that Naik worked more than 240 days and therefore he can be treated, in continuous service attracting the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, lecord shows that, he did not work in the one and the same position for 240 days continuously within a block of twelve calendar months commencing backward from the date of his discontinuance, as observed in the above decision.

name of Naik was listed, lapsed w.e.f. 31-3-97, there- lore, question ol termination of his service does not arise and that his discontinuance in terms oi the settlement, falls under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which does not amount to retrenchment as defined under the Act. Consequently compliance of Section 25F and 251HFF by the manage- ment befoie discontinuance, does not arises. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 thereloie an-wtred in the negative and issue No. 3 consequently does not survive.

13. "Retrenchment"' under section 2(oo) means" termination by the employer of the service of a workman • for'any reason, whatsoever-, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted >by way of disciplinary action but does no -include*-—

(a) (b)

Sub-Clause (bb) states 'termination of the service of the workman .as a result ot the non-renewal of the contra|ct of em,pj0yment 'between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such con- tract being--terminatedbinder a stipulation in that behalf contained' therein'.

14. The Learned Representative for the manage- ment at this juncture submits that Naik was empa^- nelled as a .sweeper in the year 1991 as per the settlement, wh&h list was time to time extended till 1996 and hereafter it was kept alive till 31-3-97. Naik admits in hrs cross examination > para-25 that, his name was empannelled for absorption. The panel list in which name* of Naik was listed, lapsed on 31-3-97. Therefore he does rot get right of absorp- tion.. He has relied on "Syndicate Ba"k and Ors. Vs. Shankar Paul and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC pg. 584. Their Lordships ob- served "painel prepared by bank for absorp- tion of temporary Attenders on permanent basis in view of revised policy to appoint only empanelled candidates-Empanelled candidates informed that the panel was valid for one year only and that inclusion of their names in the panel was- not to confer on them any right to appointment after expiry of the period of one year, held, empanelled candidates had no right to absorption." In the ;ase in hand, list in which Naik's name wts admittedly Jis'ed which he was aware lalpsed on 31-3-97, therefore, he doss not get ri"ht of absorp- tion, in view of the decision referred supra.6345 services, which, he was aw me hit name' was em- panelled. • u that is so, tie cannot now say thait, he wda noi member ol ihe .un.on and mereiore swuie- ment is not binding on him. in view ot the position, n is oiear thai, NCUJK was cUbcoiuinaed- as per the settlement. Consequently issue No. 4 is answered to -that effect.

16. In view of the above discussion it is cleair that Naife was not in continuous service and that he was discontinued" from the service as' per the •settlement whieh tails within the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently his discontinuance does not amount to retrenchment. At the cost of repetition it may be noted that, before the workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry within sectiorF-25B of trie Industrial Disputes Act, it mrtst be shewn.first that he.was employed for a period not less than 12 calendar months and next that during this 12 calendar months he had worked for not less tha|a* 240 days. Whether the worker was -employed only for 11 months the fact that during such period of 11 months, he had vorked for more than 240 days, would not entitle him to set the benefit of sec- tion . 25F of the - Indusrial Disputes Act for which reliance can be placet! on Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Vs. Their workmen SCC 2 LLJ 367. On this back-ground Naik's discontinuance cannot be said-- to be-improper, illegal and unjustified. Therefore Issue Nb. 5 is answered in the affirmative, of which cumu- lative effect, is that Naik- is not entitled to any relief. Therefore the following order is. passed :

ORI3ER

The act-ion of tne management of State' Bank of India,. Panaiji, Goa in discontinuing (termi- nating), the services of Shri Sandcep K. Najk. w.e.f. 6-4-97 is legal, proper and justified. Consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 9th October, 2001¹ S.O.3000.^—In-.pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebv publishes the award- of the Central Government Industral Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in -the- Annexnrc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Standard .chartered Crindlays Banks Ltd. and their workman, winch was received by the Central Government • on 8-10-2001.

[Nb. L.-l20i2/l 19/2001-IR(BiI)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNtiXURIi

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA .

Reference No. 19 of 2001

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., Kolkata

AND

Their Workman.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of Management : Mrs. Sutapa Dutta, Advocate. On behalf of Workman : None.

STATE : W et Bengal. INDUSTRY : Banking.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12P12 '\ !9/2001-IR(B.I) dated 11-6-2001 the Central JGovernment in exercise of its powers under section 10(1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reltrred the following dispu e to this Tribunal, for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Staff- dard Chartered Grir.dlaji Bank (the then ANZ Grindlays Bank) interminating Sri Samiran Das from the service of the Bank w.e.f. 1-6-2000 is justified ? If not, what relief is Sri Das entitled ?"

2. It appears from record that workman never appeared before the Tribunal, nor any step was taken on his behalf \o- proceed with the case, even though notice was duly served to him. It is accordingly clear that the workman is no more interested to proceed with the case.

3. In the circumstances, m the absence of any material lor any decision in u\-pect of the schedule under'reference, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to treat it as a case of no dispute and to dispose of the matter by passing a "No Dispute" Award.

4 A "No Dispute" Award h accordingly passed and the reference is disposed of. Dated, Kolkata, The 26th September, 2001.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer6346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . NOVEMBER 3, 2001/KARTIKA 12, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J Sunita Devi, Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 8-10-98 is justied ? If not, what rc'wf the workman is entitled ?" New Delhi, the 9th October, 2001

S.O. 3001.—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 lndustrif.1 Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncuire in the Indus- trial Djspufe between the employers in relation to the management of Bank cf Rajashan Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- mant on 8-10-2001.

[No. L-12012,56|2000-IR(B-I)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

"Whether the action of the management

of the Bank of Rajasthan. Jaipur

in terminating the services of Smt,6U7 6148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBERS, 2001/KARTIKA 12, 1923 [P>RT II—SFC 3(i)] workman, which was received bv the Central Cuni.rnniuit en 9-10-2001.

tNo. L-120J2/72/98-IR{B.I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT. BANGALORE

Dated : 19th September, 2001

PRESENT •

Honble Shri V. N Kulkarni, B.Com., LL.B., Presiding Officer, CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C _R. No 92/98

I PARTY

Shri K.. Srinivas Murthy, S/o Late Venkoba Rao, C/o State Bank Staff Union (K) St Marks Road,

Bangaiore-560001

II PARTY

The Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office ^8, Church Street. Bangalore-560001 (Advocate : Smt. Indu R. Raj)

AWARD

I The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred bv clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has refeired this dispute vide order No. L-12012/72'9"-IR(B-I) dated 30th October, 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Is the management of State Bank of India is justified in dismissing the services of Sri Srirrivasa Murthy, Head Clerk, If so, to what relief Shri Srmivasa Murthy is entitled to ?"

2. The first party was working with the second party He was dismissed from service and therefore the Industrial, Dispute is laised.

3. Parties appeared -and filed Claim Statement and

Counter respectively.

New Delhi, the 10th Octobei, 2001

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

S.O. > 3O02 —-In pursuance of Seclion 17 of the 5. It is the case of the first party that he joined the services of the Second Party during March, 1^74 and he was working del'gently. While he was working at Chitradurga, he was placed under suspension during July. 1991 and charge sheet was issued and .enquiry was conducted.

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebv publishes the award ot the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court,. Bangalore, as shown m the Annexure in the Indus'r'nl Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their6349 6. It is the case cf the ii'st party that the enquiiy officer conducted the enquiry in the absence of first party and hi, representative. II is further contented that the enquiry is not corrv.t and full opportunity was \vt gi /en vnd Ji >rge slid,t is \rcuc.

7. I! is I¹!.- fuuhcr cafe of t!.e first paity that on rcqu^t enquiry was reopined but the Enquiry Offi- cer !) is v t given iiny oppi miuity to defend the first party, T h ^e is vctimibaiica and the order of dis- missal ^ not conec'. The firs! party for these reason^ h" f a y ed to pas*, avrnui in his favour.

8. The case of the -econd party in brief is as

follow? :

9. Regarding enquiiy the contention of the mana- gement is tlmt the first party himself remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings and there- fore expurte enquiry v/°s conducted

New Delhi, the 17 th October, 2001 S.O. 3003.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)- the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Karnataka Bank Lid. and their workman, which was received b~' the Central Government on 16-10-2001.

[No. L-i2012|78'92-IR(B-!II)!(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL T R T R U N A L - C U M- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated : 10*h October. 2001 PRESENT :

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNI. B. COM, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-I ABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R. No. 48'92

I PARTY

Shri P. Chandrashekar, No. 519, Agrahara, R-inTina?aram-571511, R in galore. (Advocate—S. Sukumaran),

II PARTY

The Chairman, Karnataka Bank Ltd. Head Office, Kodialbail- Mangalore-575003, (Advocate—R. Upadhyaui).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by ^x^v^ing the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Sec ion 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012 7S 92-IR.B.IU chted 1st June, 1992 for adjudication on the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri P. ChandrasheL-r was a workman of Kairrnka Bark Ltd ? If so, whether the action of the management of Karnatcka Bank Ltd. in termimine the s ^ v es ot P. Chandrashek ir. Hony, Deposit Collector, \v.e.f, 7-8-86 wns justifi- ed ? Tf not to what relief Shri P. Chandrash^K.^r is < I'iried "o ⁹" 2. The first partv was a workman of Karnataka Bank Ltd. and hK services wer.3 terminated. He was a Honev Deposit Collec- tor and therefore industrial dispute ^ raided.

3. Parties appeared ard filed Cln;m State- ment and Counter respectively.

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

5. It is the case of the first party workman that he was employed as a Honev Deposit Collector at the Ramancnram Branch of the Second Party Bank <>inee 12th February 1975 He was r>aid wages in the form of commis- sion. The work entrusted to thr first mrfv was bth maufll as well a* clerical work. Duties of iie Deposit Collector are st.it^d in the Claim Statement. He u->ed to cnilec* the deposits from the customer and on +he next day morning he had to report to 'he BanV after filling UD various forms and registers, he has to deposit *he amount to th^ credit of the concerned account. First nart^ hod work- ed sincerclv and honestiv and on^n^rl fara- number of Honev Deposit Accounts and introduced 1.ar?e number of new customers 'o the bank of the Second Partv.

6. It is the iuither case of the first party that to the great shock and surprise of the first party, the Ramanagaram Branch Manager ol the Second Pat ty bank had issued a letter dated 17-11-1981 asking the first party not to open new accounts and also to clos3 most of the then existing accounts.

7. On 6-8-1996 the Manager had asked the fitst party to return the letter of Authority issued to the first party at the time of appoint- ment and issued a paper notification on 11-8-96 is a Kannada Daily "Bayalu Seeme"' stating that the first party will not be continued in the services ot the bank. The first party has not committed any irregularity or misappropriation and the management without any reason illegally thrown him ou^ of employment w.e.f. 7-8-1986. No show cause notice was issue-1 and no enquiry was conducted against him before termination. The management has r°jtcted the request of

8. The case of the management in brief is as follows •

9. It is not true that the first par'v was em ployed as a Honey Deposit Collector bv the management or was paid anv wages in "rr form of commission or the wosk entrusted to hi/n was both maniui and clerical. There is no post of Honev Deposi; Collector in the -taff pa.tern of tlic Second Pnriv. The first r-artv offered to work as a canvasser for the "branch for a period of one year and h: cx" ruted an agreement of Agency which was being renewed from ^ear to vear. Th- firsf agreement w^<- dated 1-12-1984. H<- w^ expected ^o colloc^ ("'eoosits fro-n the public as per the Scheme and deooMt the same at the Branch to the credit of the resnec^ve nc- <°ount'. and he was srettinc commission from the denosits collected bv him for the month. No fixed mvmpnt is a^r^cd to b^ criven to him nor was hd a^ked to do anv clerical iob in th^ ban¹-' H"" hqd no regular nbee of work, areo of wo"V hours ^f work

10. The rrnin contention of th ^ m°">Tre- ment is that the first pirtv is not n workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act6351 and the dispute is not maintainable. It is also said this tribunal has passed an Award in CR. No. 194187 holding that a Honey Deposit Collector is not a workman. In the conciliation proceedings the represenla'ivc of the bank has not agreed to reinstate the first party. The management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

17. Taking all this into consideration l am of the opinion that the action of the manage- ment is not correct and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed and the manage- ment is directed to regularise the services of the first party. In uew of the fact that the first party was paid only a commission no backwages are awarded. The management is directed to regularise the services of the first party workman.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 10th October, 2001) V. N. KULKARN1. Presiding Officer ?rt fer^rfY, I o m^x, 2001

11. It is seen from the records that the management examined MW1 and clase the case. Against this the workman got examin- ed himself as WW1. According to the evi- dence of MW1 the first party was a pigmy agent and he was appointed and agreement Ex. Ml was executed between the bank and the first party. The agreement was renewed subsequently every year. Ex. M2 is the agree- ment executed between the Bank and the first party and that expired on 4-12-1985. There- after it was not renewed.

12. The evidence of WW1 is that he was a Honey Deposit Agent and executed agree- ment till 1986. He was terminated in 1986. He further says that after him two others were appointed as agents and no show cause notice or compensation was given to him.

13. I have heard the arguments of both sides. I have carefully perused the records. The counsel for the first party has relied deci- sion of the Hon'blc Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SCW 749. In view of the deci- sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, now it is clear that the first party is a work- man of the bank.

14. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decision of the Hon'ble Supremo Court- there is no merit in the contentio ; of the management that the first party is not <-i woikman of the bank. Further the manage- ment has to regular!?;* the services of th<" workman ns per the older of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

WA.'AJ. 30 0 4— *TiSFTpHT f"RT? SffeNW, 19 47 ( 1 9 47 spr 14) qft snrr 1 7% mztm 3, %>-sfc f^TR ^ tF?£m Qrmx ^ W t f iw s r f w^ ?pHw?;

1 0 - 1 0 -2 0 01 W.J 5TFFT fprr "fT I

[?f. ti-t^T- 42 0 1 1 / 4 5 / 2 00 0—5iTi "f iT {fVj)} f ^ i' xm =PTT, f^F ?rfsr^TTT New Delhi, the i')th October, 2001 S.O. 3004.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Aci, 19-17 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government l-idustnal Tubunal-cum-Labour Court, Bii.ibjneswcir JS -! ,A> n in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ot All Incia Radio and their woikman, which was received b^ the Cential Go- vernment on 10-10-2001.

[No. L ^2eili-i5i2G0O-IR(DU)j KULDfP RAi VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNV1FNT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL-CLM L\BOUR COURT BHUB/VNESWAR

15. The first party workman h?⁵ also relied decision^ reported in ILRCKar^ S.N. 4!. £T further relied decision rcoorled in CA No. 364 of 1981 dated 2Kt April 1981 of th Sup>v: V Court of India.

16. I have read the above d^ci-ions care- fully. Now the management has to treat the first p;

Shri S K Dhal, OSJS. (Sr. Bianch), Presiding Officer, C.GJ T. ^ura-Labou'r Corn, Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Ci^e No. 21J2000 Date of conclusion i.f licuiiu- 1 Ph Sepi. 200] Date of Passing Award—-3rd Oct. 20016352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 3, 2001/KARTIKA 12, 1923 [PART TT—SEC. 3(ii)l BETWEEN :

The Management of the Staiicn Director,

Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India,

All India Radio, Jcypore, Orissa-764001—1st Party- Management.

Workman. It has been further submitted that the promotion of Shri L. M Paltanik to the post of Disel Technician was made on 22-10-1993 according to the statutory provisions under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The promotion of Shri L, M. P-ittnaik wa¹-. convdered by Depart- mental Promotion Committ-jc, It has been further averred that the 2nd Party-Workman has got no cause of action and he is not entitled for any relief.

AND

4. On the pleadings of the patties, the following

Issues have been settled :—

i Whether their is any Industrial Dispute

between the Parties ?"

Their Workman, Shri M. R. Sahu, Association of Radio & T.V. Engineering Employees, All India Radio, Jevpore, Koraput-764020, Orissa, —2nd Party- Workman.

II. Whether the reference ;s maintainable ?

APPEARANCES :

Shri Kali Kinkar Mishra,

Station Director : For the 1st Party-Management.

has been fiied by the 2nd Paity-Workman himself. No Union has represented to him. He alone has contested this case. Tn oider that a dispute has to become an Industrial Dispu;e, it should be espoused by a body of workmen or espoused by the union. But in case of retrenchment the 2nd ppily-V. on an can alone- bring a depute. In ih~ prcj"iir ca-e he 2nd Party-Workman has not been leprese i. Sc 'n tiiJ. c:^e this dispute can not be treats.! as Indu&i.iul BiSpJ-e. The case of which reliance has bet a placed on behalf of the 2nd Party-Workman are distinguishable from the present case on facts and those cases in which the dispute was raised by a body of the Workman and the case which was raised b> an individual work- man was the ca~e of termination. So the principle dee'ded in the cited cases are no mere applicable to the facts of the present case. So in my opinion this dispute can not come under the definition of Indus- trial Dispute. H c n c\ this Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to answer the reference.

ISSUED NO. Ill & IV

7. In view of my above findings given in respect of Issue No. I no further discussion will be answered in lespect of other two issues.

S. As pci my above d'&cussion I am of the opinion that, no Industrial Dispute exists between the parties and hence this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

9. Reference ir, answeied aceoidingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, ihe 10th October, 2001 S.O. 3005.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Depute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government rieieby publishes the award of tho Centril Gov&rnmeni Iiirivistrial Tribunal-cum- LdboiK Court, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure in th: Industrrtl Dispute between the employers in relation to the management o." Delhi Milk Scheme and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 10-10-2001.

[No. L-12011 46,88-D-IK.B)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BLORE SHRI RUDRESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI I. D. No. 97,-89

L-4201l/46y88-D2(Bj

Tile General Secretary, Delhi Milk Scheme Employees Union (Head Office), West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008

Versus

/he Chairman, Delhi Milk Scheme, West Patel Nagar, New Deihi-110008

AWARD

The Central Gen eminent in the Ministry of Labour by oidcr dated 12-10-89 referred following dispute for adjudication:—

"Whether the action of management of Delhi M:lk Scheme, Dei hi hi not giving the pay of S'ore Attendants to the Store Mates (list enclosed)) as they v,ere doing the job of Store Attendants for a long period ?" If not, what relief the workman concerned are entitled to ?"

2. The matter wa^ taken it¹ the preliminary hearing oi perpo:>cd Lok Adalat on 3- J 0-2001. Parties desired time to settle their dispute and 5-10-2001 was fixed , for further hearing. Sh. Harish Sharma, Personnel Officer of Delhi Milk Scheme, presented letter No. 4-1S/DMS-4/2001 d? ted 5-10-2001 signed by Sh. Sant Ram, President of the Union. The letter mentions that consequent upon the iinpli'iivif;iii(.|i "f the rrc.Tnmepdationj. of the Fifth !\i\ Commission, the dispute with regard to their Pay Scales has since been solved and 'No Dispute' is pending for adjudi- cation Acordiiigly. the Union acting through its Fiv^Jent has requested to withdraw the case.

3 In v;ew of the praver maoc by the workman, these c\;"ts 'No Dispuit' tc be adjudicated. Accor- dingly, the reference is returned ' to the Central Government without adjudication on merie, treatine it as 'NO DISPUTE AWARD'.

5-10-2001

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer6354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 3, 2001/KARTIKA 12, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the 10th October, 2001

the services of Sri P. V. Sukumarakrishnan by way oi compuiaory retirement w.e.t 1-9-90 is justified ? h not, to wiiat relief he is entitled T

2. The mam a\umenh lound ni die Claim State-

ment of the Petitioner aic as ioilows :

S.O. 3006.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cential Government heicby publishes the award of the Indus- trial Tiibunai-cum-Labour Couit, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in ihe Industrial Dispute between the employers in J elation to the inanagement o± IvLul Motor Service, D/o Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Go\ernment on 10th October, 2001

LNo. L-40012/J56/94-IR(DU)|

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Orlicer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE IHE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI

Thnrsd •>, the 27<'i day of September, 2001

PRESENT :

Ihiiu S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc, B.L., Industiial

Tribunal.

Industiial Dispute No. 212 of 1994

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman and the Management of Mail Motor Seivice. Madras-600006.)

BETWEEN

Shri P. V. Sukumarakrishnan, No. 49, Corporation Small Line, Shivarao Road, Pattalam, Madras- 1 2

AND

The Si. Manager, Mail Motor Service, Dio Posts, Madras-600006.

REFERENCE:

Order No L-40012/156/94-IR(DU), dated 16-12-94, Ministry of Laboui, Government of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final heai ing on Friday, the 14th day of September, 2001, upon pei using the reference. Claim and Counter Statements and all other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of T\l M. Gnanasekar and M. Mani. Advocates appearing for tne Woikmen and the Man- agement being absent, this Tribunal made the following :

AWARD

The Petitioiici joined n.e respondent Depaitments in the year 1973. While ne was on duly on 16-5-87 the van in which he was on duty suffered break down at Meenambakkam and the same was intimated by me applicant so the 2nd icspunds-nt. He was placed under suspension on 26-5-8/. The petitioner renuered unconditional appology and requested for lcuistate- ment be his petition aated 22-7-8 7. The suspension o:der was revoked tnereartei. However ne was issued with a Charge Memo dated 23-7-87 stating that the petitioner while functioning us I.S. Driver on 16th May, 1987 has caused the seizuie ol engine m Mail Van No. 57/1CX 9157. i he cnarge against him was that he has driven the vehicle without engine oil and without observing warning lamp and oil pressure gauge on instrument panel of the v;ntcic. The engine ceaseU. it was stated in at the petitioner was lack of devotion to duty violating the provision of lule 3(l)(i0 of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. A departmental enquiry was ordered, ihe 2nd lespondent by an Older dated 1-0-1989 imposed tne punishment of removal from service. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The enquiry officer examined the petitioner d tiling the denovo enquuy and found the charges against trie petitioner proved. The 2nd respondent thereafter passed an Order iat-a 1-9-90 imposing tLe punishment of removal lrom service. Ihe 1st respon- dent by an Order dated 27-2-91 rejected the appeal. But the modified the punishment of jrerao'val lrom service to that of compulsory lethement. The peti- tioner has filed an O.A. 632/91 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras. The petitioner sub- mits that in his case he nus not done anything con- traiy to Rule 3(l)(n) of the CCS Conduct Rules. The expieisions like an act unbecoming of a Govesn- Shcnl su\ vt an I Jack o ciev" lion to duty aie loose cxpies^ions. Pie has caused loss to the depaitment to the tune of Rs. 5026.77. Th5 petiionei. Even as pei the evidence available on record the leakage of oil fiom tne engine due to loss of and not due to diiving the vehicle without engine oil. The original applica- tion v,,,, unlor.undtely dismissed by the Cenhai Ad- ministrative Tribunal by its OiJci dated 12-4-94. The petitioner submits that he ha-, got 13 raoie years ni seivice. He has got a big fani'ly to support ait¹ he is the sole bread-winiv of the family. It ,, tnciefoie prayed tihat ihi, Tribunal may h; pL-iscd to declare the action cf the :cspondents -\ imposing the punish- ment of compu^ory ictremciv* from service on 27th Februaiy, 1991 on illegal, unjust ynd arbituuy and consequently direct the respondent to icimtqt.* the petitioner w.t f. 1-9-9U ws"h all attendant wicz benefits includ'nc an ears ol back wages.

The Government of India has refened the follow

ing issue for adjudication by this Tribunal •

"Whether the action of the Senior Marugei

1 Tl.c nnln nomen's i< and in the ( ounter Stat.-- Mail Motor Seivki. , ^i.iuia-, in teiniinntins

ni^nf of the Respondent aic as follows :

maior punishment. For the reasons staled above it is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss above l.D.

4. On behalf oi Respondent, Exs. Ml to M12 were marked by consent. No witnesses weie examined for Loth sides.

5. The Point for consideration is whether the action of th.~ Senior Manager, Mail Motor Services, Madras in terminating the services of Sri P. V. Sukumara- krishnan by way of Compulsory Retirement w.e.f. 1-9-90 is justified? If not. to what relief he is entitled ?"

6. The Point : On 30-12-96 there was an Award by th;s Tribunal hold;n~ that this Tribunal lacks juris- diction and the Industrial Disputes were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. As against the same, a Writ Petition was filed in W.P. 14122/98 wherein an Order was passed on 5-11-99 holding that in view of the findings in 1998- J-LI.I 255 this Tribunal will be having jurisdiction and therefore the matter was remitted back for dis- posal according to law.

7. The petitioner Thiru P. V. Sukumnrakrishnan was a driver. He had joined the Postal Department (respondent) in the year 1973. While he was on duty on 16-5-87 with Van No. 57/TCX 9157 belonging to the Postal Department, he has failed to stop the vehicle imm.?dintcl\ when the c<'< low pressure indi- cating lamp started glowing; but continued to drive and ride the vehicle till it stopped due to engine seizure. Due to his negligence, (here was a loss caused to the department to the tune of Rs. 5026.77. He was placed under suspension on 26-5-1987. On the next day, the workman has applied for revocation of suspension through his letter dated 27-5-87 which was marked as Ex. M2. He has also expressed un- coadi*:ona1 ?p.\!ogv through Fx M3. Even though the suspension was revoked on 24-7-87. there was a Charge memo dated 23-7-87 issued to him. For the above say of the management in para 5 of its counter, there is no rejoinder or evidence contra. Thus the re- vocation or suspension dated 24-7-87 cannot nullify the Charge Memo issued on the earlier date.

modified iiora lemoval oL service to CompuLoiy IC- tirement. As against which the petitioner pieferrcd O.A. No. 632/1991 bcfoie the Cential Administra- tive Tnhuriiil, Madias which was also later on dis- missed. The copy ol the Older ok Ccntial Adminis- trative Tribunal was maiked as E\. M i 2. It was held therein that the contention of the workman that theie was no evidence before Ihe Enquiry Officer to pio\c the Charge against the woikman was untenable. It Was furthes held that theie was no lorce in the con- tention of the workman that the Scivice Engineer or the Standard Motor Product of India Ltd. ought to have been examined and the workman ought to have been given an opportunity to re-cross examination. After exhausting of such ienied'es the dispute under Sec(;on 2K of Industrial T'impute Act was raised.

9. Now the contention of the workman is that ho had not violated the Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS Con- duct Rules of 1964; that the management could have recoveted the amount of loss of Rs. 5026.77. It was also contended that there was leakage of oil from the engine and that was the reason for the seizure of engine. The non-availability of engine oil, mav be due to leakage or even out of mechanical exhaust But in either case, the glowing of the warning lamp and oil pressure gauge on the instrument panel of vehicle was there. It has not been denied that there was no such warning lamp or so. It h (he paramount duty of any driver to watch this warning signals and if it was properly done a seizure of engine could have been easily avoided. The contention of the workman that he was not responsible for the leakage of the engine oil is unacceptable. He may not be responsible for the leakage but he was responsible for not having taken any safeguard method e\en after seeing the slow- ing of the warning lamp.

10. Again it was contended that there was no vio- lation of Rule 3 d ) ( i i ). According to the workman it contains only loose expression. Actually what the rule says is that every Government servant shall at all times maintain devotion to duty. The Charge Memo contained an explanation as to how there was negligence of duty on the part of the workman. On 16-5-87 the workman has'given Van No. 57/TCX 9157 which went out of Order due to dearth of * n"

11. The next contention of the workman is fhat the Loss of Rs. 5026.77 could have been recoveied from him is also unacceptable because the manage- ment had shown that on three prior occasions namely on 9-12-81, 12-10-84 and 30-5-81, similar negligent ic* hovf> b en committed by the same workman. Ex. M4 shows that on 24-8-83 there was a Proceeding which would show the prior action apainst the same workman in his similar earlier defaults while func- t> "lim; as a diiver of M ul Van No. TNW 5494. On 7-3-82 there was another proceeding through Ex. M7 which would go to show the workman's negli- gence dm ing driving of Postal Van No. TMX 4216 Ho a as charge slieekJ in 1! M.M. Fgmorc undei Seriion 116 of M.V. Act. These lapses on the part of the workman were mentioned even in Ex. M1Q Proceedings difcd 1-9-90 connected to this incident. Therefore to cav that actual loss could have been re- covered from the petitioner instead of taking action against him is also unacceptable.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied unon 1989 (2) ATP 2!5 and contended that the Tri- bun tl has power to examine the adequacy of penalty on the ground that it is not commensurate with delin- ouency of the official In that case it was held that when a person without an enquiry was dismissed sol el v on the basis of conviction by Ciiminal Court, the Tri- bunal may examine the adequacy of penalty imposed in the I⁵i?ht of conviction and the sentence inflicted on the person He has also relied upon AIR 1998 SC 948 wherein it was covte\dejl tint workman found in sleeping during hours of Night shift in Plant and kept machine in running condition without inserting r^"\-mnterinl therein—-7nit\>k'I'D" of punishment of di'm'ss^l—wmi'd be d'cnror>ortionate ond amounts to unfair Labour Pract'c^ be;<~ * an incidence of leral vct'r.vs^tiprt B' •" in thir rpc- there is total damage of the ermine of tfr* Van due to 1h" negligent pet of th* drive; whereas s.uch thing b"H not happened in th° pbc" e cited cace

13. Similarly reliance was ploced in ATR 2000 Supreme Court 1151 wherein the Bus Conductor found to have issued tickets to all passenger* but there were short distance ticket ; dispute about point at which pascensers bopided bus—decided not bv exrm

14. Agam reliance was placed on 1987 (4) Supreme Court Cases 611 wherein it was held that the wider the power, the greater the need for the restraint in its exercise and correspondingly, more liberal the construction of the procedural safeguards envisaged bv the statute. That case was a mere disobedience of the lawful command of the Military Officer to eat his food which was refused. So it was a minor matter.

15. For the above reasons, the application of Sec- tion 11A flnd interference in the imposition of puni- shment could not be rmd*\ The punishment is onlv compulsory retirement which is commensurate with ihe misconduct if the cMwca'ent. who hsd already ifduiaed in -urh negligent act frequently.

16. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the workim i Industrial c'ispute i¹- disnt'ssed. Award passed. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this 27th day of September, 2001.

THIRU S. R. SINGHARAVELU. Industrial Tribunal I.D. 212 of 1994

Witnesses examined:

For Petilionor|Workmen : None.

For Respondent/Management : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner|Workmen : Nil.

For Respondent/Management :

Ex. Ml : Memo No. MSR/253/Comp./150 dt. 23-7-87 of the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Service, Madras-6.

Ex. M2 : Letter dt. 27-5-87 of Shri P. V. Suku- marakrishnan.

Ex. M3 : Letter dt. 22-7-87 of Sri P. V. Suku- marakrishnan.

Ex. M4 : Memo No. MST/A. 499 dt. 24-8-83 of the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Service, Madras-6.

Ex. M5 : Utter No. MST/A/Misc./l 3/84-96 dt. 25-3-85 of the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Service, Madras-6.

Ex M6 : Memo No. MSE|253fComp. 119 dt. 26-6-86 of the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Service, Madras-6.

Ex. M7 : Letter No. DCT/B5/319/842/82 dt. 7-3-82 of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Madras-7.

Ex. M8 : Letter No. DCT/3462/10733/B5-21 dt. 30-1-82 of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Madras-7.

Ex. M9 : Order No. ST. A3. 385/89 Madras dt. 20-12-89 of the Director of Postal Services, Madras Region, Madras-2.

Ex. M10 : Memo No. ASE/253/Comp. 150/ 11 dt. 1-9-90 of the Senior Manager, Mail Motor Service, Madras-6.

Ex. Mil : Order No. STC/15-2949/90 dated 27-2-91 of the Director of Postal Service, Madras Region, O/o the Chief P.M.G. Madras-2.

Ex. M12 : Judgement dt. 12-4-93 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras is dismissing O.A. No. 632/1991 filed by Sri P.V. Sukumarakrishnan.

3326 GI|2001—24

c$*$7 New Delhi, the 15th October, 2001 S.O. 3007.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the •Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Department and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 15-10-2001.

[No. l.*4Q012|227]99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL HOVERNM^NT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar.—tf>r<"s*dir>g 'Officer.

Reference No. .CGIT-2|46 of 2000 Employers in relation to the Management of :

The S.DE (TcIetrrPnns) D.T.O. Jalgaon-4J5001.

The Genernl Manager rTdecem.. Ja1gaom425 001.

AND

Their Workmen.

Sh. Nnmdeo Rnfaram PatjJ. 191, ShVaii N^ear, Bhncat S;nch Chowk, Jalgaon-425 001.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employcr.^Mr. M. S. Chaudhnn Rep- resentative.

For ihe Workmen.—In Person.

Mumbai, dated 12th September, 2001

AWARD

The Government of Indn, M;i''ctrv of Labour, hv its Order No L-4001?J??7ln9lIRrDU>, dated 21-10-99 and vide transfer order dnt"d 28-2-2000, have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause fd) of sub-section (1) Pnd sub-section 2CA) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

"Whether the action of the management of Tel-com. through its S D E. (Teleirranh), DTO, Jaleaon and Gereral Manager Tele- com Jal("aon in termimtin^ the service of Sh Nnmdco'Ramram Patil w.ef, lR-2-99is lecal, proper and notified 1 If jiat, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"6358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 3, 2001/KARTTKA 12, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] he worked more than 6 hours during the period 4-6-93 to 17-2-99. However, abruptly his services were terminated verbally w.e.f. 18-2-99. He stated that they did not follow the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. His services were so ter- minated though he had worked continuously for 240 days in preceding twelve calendar months and added that the Assistant General Manager Telecom (Admn.) by his letter No. E-7|ll[A|99-2000|8, dtd. 26-11-99, taken him as full time casual labour w.e.f. 1-12-99. It is seen from the record, on the date of discontinuance, Mf. Patil had completed 240 days thereby infact, be had complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to regularise his ser^ vice. Or. this back ground the grievance of Mr. Patil that he shoukl not have been discontinued on 18-2-99 finds substance. It is to be noted that management did not file affidavit to rebut the testi- mony of Patil nor in their Written Statement pointed out that the'r action was junified. It is therefore clear that Patil was illegally terminated on 18-2-99 though he had completed 240 days and consequently was fit to take as full time casual labour w.e.f. 18-2-99 itself. The management's action on this back ground is therefore totally against the provi- sions of Industrial Disoutes Act, not at all legal, proper and justified. Therefore point is answered accordingly.

2. Namdco Rajaram Patil was engaged as a part- time waterman in the office of D.T.O. Jalgaon, He ivas working daily for six hours during the period 4-6-93 to 17-2-99. He was not allowed to avail weekly off and holidays. He was filling the water, serving water to on duty employees working in Tels- graphs Office, Jalgauii. fn addition to this, he was dusting tables and chairs and other furnitures and counters and other miscellaneous work such as going to post office or to handover documents to various sections. He continuously worked for five years, two months and fifteen days, and inspite ot this, his services were terminated abruptly on 18-2-99, though the Head of department had issued directions to regularise the services of part time worker^. It is contended Patil approached Assistant LabouT Commissioner(C), Pune, who in turn, directed the department to regularise his services, but in-vain. It is contended the department after dis- continuing lvm recruited labourers through direct contractors, flouting the directions of the Apex Court and the concerned deparment. It is contended in the year 1997 since he had completed four years, his name was to- be empannelled for the full time sweepers, however, he was deliberately neglected. It is contended that his termination is against the pro- visions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore he be reinstated in service from 1S-2-99 with full back wages. Vide amendment (Exhibit-3) he contended that the Assistant Manager Telecom, Jalgaon vide his Order dated 26-11-99 appointed him as full time casual labour w.e.f. 1-12-99. It is his grievance that he should have been appointed as full time casual labour w.e.f. 18-2-99.

8. As stated above Mr. Patil in view of the pro- visions of the Industrial Disputes Act, since had completed 240 days on 8-2-99, his services should not have been terminated. Therefore he will have to be treated in service as fuil-time casual labour from 18-2-99 instead of 1-12-99 and consequently ho is entitled to monetary benefits from 18-2-99. There- fore the following order is passed :

ORDER

3. Management SDE (Telegraphs) and The Gene- ral Manager Telecom, resisted the claim of Patil by filing Written Statement (Exhibit-4). It is their contention that management did not violate the pro- visions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Patil being a part time contingency labour, was not entitled for weekly off and holidays. He has been appointed as full time casual labour w.e.f. 1-12-99.

Action of the management of Telecom through its S.D.E. (Telegraphs) D.T.O. Jalgaon and General Manager Telecom, Jalgaon in ter- minating the services of Shri Namdeo Raja- ram Patil we.f. 18-2-99 is not legal, pro- per and justified,

Mr. Patil be treated as full-time casual labour w.e.f 18-2-99 instead of 1-12-99 and he be rr;d all consequential benefits from 18-2-99.

4. Namdeo Rajaram Patil filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chtcf (Exhibit-6), and that he was cross-examined by management on 9-3-2000. Mana- gement did not lead anv oral evidence. Patil filed Written submissions (Exhibit 7) and the management at (Exhibit-8) and vide purshis (Ex-16 and 17) both the parties contended that the matter be decid- ed as per trie written submissions.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 5. On perusing the record as a whole and going , through tlhe submissions a short point arises for my

determination in this reference :

"Whether the action of the management of

_ Telecom, through its S.D.E. (Telegraph),

DTO, Jalgaon and General Manager Tele- coin, Jalgaon in terminating the services of Nimdco Rajaram Patil w.e.f. 18-2-99 is legal, proper and justified?

6. My find'ng on the above point is in the nega-

tive for the reasons recorded below :

REASONS

7. MF. , Patil stated in his affidavit that he was engaged as a part time water-man in the year 1993,6359 New Delhi, the 15 th October, 2001 S.O. 3008.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- LaK-ur Court No. 2, Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure in lhe industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Department and their \\ oil man which was received by the Central Government on 15-10-2001.

[No. L-40012|228|99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BFFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO II. MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar.—Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGlT-2|sS of .2000.

Employers in relation to thf Management of :

The S.D.E. (Telegraphs) D.T.O. Jalgaon-425001.

The General Manager Telecom., Jalgaon-425 001.

AND

Their Workmen.

Sh. Piadip Harish Changare.

136, Shanipeth,

Gurunanak Nagar, Jalgaon-425 001.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer.—Mr. M< S. Chaudhari Rep- resentative.

For the Workmen.—In Person.

Mumbai, dated 10th September, 2001.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-40012i228l99;iR(DU), dt. 21-10-99 and vide transfer order dated 28-2-2000, have refer- red the following industrial dispute to this Tribu- nal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom through its S.D.E. (Telegraphs), D.T.O. Jalgaon and General Manager Tele- com, Jalgaon in tciminating the services of Shri Pradip Harish Changare w.e.f. 18-2-99 is legal, proper and justified? If not,, co what relief the said workman is en- titled ?"

2. Pradip Harish Changare was engaged as a part-time sweeper in the year 1993 in the office of D.l'.O. Jalgaon. He was working daily for four hours during the period fcr 1-10-93 to 17-2-99. He was not allowed to avail weekly off and holidays and that times, he was doing work more than four hours, even 8 hour$. hie wa< cleaning the enure telegraph office including lavatory to, i.e. more area than prescribed by the department. He continuously worked for five years, four months and 18 days and inspite of this, his services were terminated ab- ruptly orally on 18-2-99, though the Head of depart- meul had issued directions to regularise the services of part time workers. It is contended Changare approached Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Pune, who in turn, directed the department to regu- larise his services, but in vain. It is contended the department after discontinuing him recruited labourers through direct contractors, flouting the directions of the Apex Court and the concerned department. It is contended in the year 1997 since he had complet- ed four years his name was to be empannelled for the full time sweepers. However, he was deliberate- ly neglected. It is contended that his termination is against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore he be reinstated in service from 18-2-99 with full back wages. Vide amendment (Fxhibit-3) he contended that the Assistant Manager Telecom, Jalgaon vide his order dated 26-11-99 ap- pointed him as full time casual labour w.e.f. 1-12-99. It is his grievance that he should have been appoint- ed as full time casual labour w.e.f. 18-2-99.

3. Management S:D:E (Telegraphs) and the General Manager Telecom, resisted the claim of Changare by filing Written Statement (Exhibit-4). It is their contention that management did not violate the pro- visions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Changare being a part time contingency labour, was not entitl- ed for weekly off and holidays. He has been ap- pointed as full time casual labour w.e.f. 1-12-99.

4. Pradip Harish Changare filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chicf iExhibit-6), and that he was cross-examined by management on 2-3-2000. Management did not lead oral evidence. Changare filed written submissions (L.jJiibit-7) and the mana- gement at (Exhibit-8) and vide purshis (Exhibit-17 and 18) both the parties contended that the matter be decided as per the Written Submissions.

5. On perusing the record as a whole and going through the submissions a short point arises for my determination in this reference :

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom, through its S.D.E. (Telegraphs), D.T.O. Jalgaon and General Manager Tele- com, Jalgaon in terminating the services .of Shri Pradip Harish Changare w.ei. 18-2-99 is legal, propel and justified?" 6. My' finding on the above point is in the nega- tive for the reasons recorded below :' '

REASONS

7. Mr. Changare, stated in his affidavit that he was engaged as a part time sweeper in the year 1993, he worked more than four hours during the period 1-10-93 to 17-2-99. However, abruptly his service:'6360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 3", 2001/KARTIKA 12, 1923 [PART II—SfeC. 3(ii)] were'term nated verbally w.e.f. 18-2-99. He stated that they did not follow the provisions of the Indus- trial Disputes Act. His service* were so terminated ttiougi nc had woiked continuously for 240 days in. preceding twelve calendar months and added tliat the A sistant Ccneial Manager Telecom(Admn.) by, his letter No. t-7j] 11A|99-2000|8, dt. 26-11-99, taken him as full tme casual labour w.e.f. 1-12-99. It is seen, from the record, on the date of discontinu- ance, Mr. Changare completed 240 days thereby in- fact, he had complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to regularise his service. On this back; ground, the grievance of Mr. Changare that he should not have been discontinued on 18-2-99 finds substance. It is to be noted that management did. not "file affidavit to rebut the testimony of Changare nor in their Written Statement pointed out tjtat their action was juyified. It is therefore clear that Changare was illegally terminated on 18-2-99 though he had comnletcd 240 days and-consequently was fit to take as full time casual labour w.e.f. 18^2-99, itself. The management's action, on this back ground is therefore totally against the provisions orinaustral Disputes Act, not at all legal, proper and justified. Therefore, point is answered accord- ingly;

8; As stated above Mr: Changare in view of the provision? of the Industrial Disputes Act, since had completed 240 days on' 18-2-99, his services should not' mxe been terminated; therefore he will have to bs treated in- service as full time casual labour from 18-2-99-instead of 1-12-99'and,consequently he is entitled lo monetary benefits from 18^2-99. Therefore the following order is passed :

ORDER

Actim of the mnrragcnrenl of Telecom through its.SD.E. (Telegraphs), D.T.O. Jalgaon and General Manager Telecom, Jalgaon in terminating the services of Shri Pradip Harish Ch?ngare w.e.f. 18-2-99 is not legal, proper and justified,

Mr. Changare be treated as full time casual labour w.e.f. 18-2-99 instead of 1-12-99 and he be paid nil consequential benefits from 18-2-99.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding' Officer New Delhi, the 16th October, 2001 S.O. 3009.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the InauiinaiL Dispute Act, 1^4/ (14 or 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between thj employers in relation to the management of Project Orlicer, Central Re- search Unit and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-10-2001.

[No. L-420l2/105/95-lR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/172/96

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai. Shri Chironji Lai,

Ex-Safaiwala

Oeanical Research Unit, Bhopal, R/O H. No. 131, Near Gate of Medical Hostel, Shahid Nagar, Bhopal.

.. . Applicant.

Versus

The Project Officer, Central Research Unit, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal,

.. .Non-Applicani

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of October, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-42012/lO5/95-IR(DU) dated 30-8-96 has referred the following dispute for ad- judication b> this tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of the Project Officer, Ce 6361

3. The case for the management is that they are not covered by the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. The workman was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis against the post created by the forrm 1 Director Shri K. is., Mukru Central Louncil for Research in Unani Medicine without obtaining sanction of the finance committee/governing body of the council as required under the rules of tlhe council. Shri R. K. Muk!;i was not empowered to execute statutory powers as hd was holding the current charge in addition to his ori- ginal duty. The appointment of the workman was made in. Utter disregard of the recruitment rules and without any statutory authority by Shri R. N. Mukhi. The name of the workKian wa^ neither sponsored through the employment exchange foi recruitment to the post nor other formalities were observed in giv- ing him ad-hoc appointment on the relevant day. The basic appointment of the workman is illegal. During the course of the audit of account. The work- mans appointment was objected and therefore his ser- vices were terminated by the management. The work- man cannot claim any right to the post as his basic appointment was illegal. He is not entitled to reinstate- ment with back wages.

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

1. Whether the Central Research Institute, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal is an indus-. try?

2. Whether the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management ?

3. Whether the workman is entitled to rein- statement with back wages ?

4. Relief and costs ?

5. Issue No. 1.—The workman has simply stated in his afiidavit that the Central Research Unit, Bhopal sells Unani Medicines to the patients. He has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his state- ment in this case. His ba5e statement will not go to prove that the Central Research Unit, Bhopal sells Unani medicine to the patients in ordinary course of trade and business. In the absence of documentary evidence, I do not find any reason to hold that Cen- tral Research Unit, Bhopal is an industry. This issue Is answered accordingly.

6. Issues No. 2 & 3.—The management has cate- gorically stated in the written statem:nt of claim that the appointment of the workman as Safaiwala⁷ was not made in accordance with the rules and against the sanctioned post. Shri R. N. Mukhi hai no legal autho- rity to appoint him as a safaiwala in the Unit. He had never obtained the sanction from the Finance Company/Government body of the counsel as per rules framed in this respect. At the same time, the appointment was notjnade in accord ince with the re- cruitment rules. There was no sanction for giving ap- pointment to the workman as safaiwa'a. All these facts clearly goes to show that the basic appointment of the workman is contrary to the rules. His appointment is held to be illegal and therefore he cannot claim any reinstatement with back wages in this case. Both these issues are answered accordingly.

7, Issue No. 4.—On the reasons stated above, it is held that the Central Research Unit, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal is not an industry and therefore the workman cannot be held to be a workman under the provisions of l.D. Act, 1947. At the same turje, his basic appointment was contrary to rules. He is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

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

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, tho-16th October, 2001 S.O. 3010.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Se;urity Paper Mill and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-10-2001.

[No. L-42011|33188-D-II(B)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/227/89

Presiding Officer: Shri K. M< Rai.

The General Manager,

Security Paper Mill Employees Union, Type-II/63, Phase-H, S.P.N. Colony, Hoshangabad.

" Applicant.

Versus.

The General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad.

.. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of October, 2001 1. iiue Uovernmtnt or india, Ministry oi Labour vide orucr INO. L-4ZUH/ J 3/ ha-u-z^n) uated j - n - o9 has rexe^reu me lonowuig dispute lor aujuuieauon by tnib tribunal :—•

"Wnetlher the demand of the SPM Employees Umon v^Niu*-; Jtiosnangabau ior payment oi wages to tUe aauy latcu employees at par witii the regular employees oy me management a aee-urny raper iviui, Jtioaiiaiiga&ad is jusuueu / it so^ wnat reuei tiie woiKinan aie eauaeu ?"

8. The case for the Union is that the persons whose name, assignation add oaier detaus aie given in /vn- neAUie-^i a..e wousuiig as casual iaoour w.ci. me daie mentioned merein. rUi mese wonceis weie wording since u,ug penod and even tnen mey nave Dceu snown cu ca^UcU employees as uicir scivices nave not been regaiansed by me management, ine woinuuen aie wording in vanoua sections oi me lvnn even since meir appoiiiuiient and tney are paid-wages at tne rate nxed by me .District coueaor. XNO oiner lacmues as is being given to oiner regoiar employees ox me ivmi are being given to the woiKnien mentioned in Annexiae-A. /\ii tne workmen aie doing me luenucai WOIK wmen are being pcrioimeU by ouier reguiar employees or me Mill, liven tnen the workmen are not oeing given the same wages tor the same work as being uoins by the regular employees of the management. In this way, ibe management nas violated the provisions ot /\racies 14, 16

3. The case for the management is that due to qualitative d;fference between two sets of employees with regard to work the principles of equal work for equal pay is not attracted in the present case.

4. Over and above all, the workers mentioned in Annexure-A have b^en regularised by the manage- ment as and when the vacancy arose. In this way, no dispute regarding ths Payment of Wages exists bet- ween tie parties. The workmen are not entitled to any rel'ef as claimed by them.

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

1. Whether the workmen are entitled to the wages equal to the regular emoloyees of the management as claimed by them?

2. Relief and costs?

6. Issue No. 1.—It has been stated by the manage- ment s wnness ^nri bauauevan rniai m para-iu of his statement mat as per ine agreement between the Uiuon anu me management, m^ itS^uiN Kepurt was noi to oe nnpiciiientcu out :i new booy was to conduct tne woiKs stuuy and accordingly fNaaonai irouucti- vity Counsel mas been appouicca on 1-0-69. A study was completed ano the report was submitted, ine recomniciiuau'on were implemented w.e.t. 31 10-92. All the worKmen, mentioned in Annexure-A, have ailready been appointed in a regular post and as and when posts became vacant due to reasons like retire- ment, deatn and resignation during tne period from 1987 to August, 1990. In ihis way, all tne workmen have been regularised by Lhe management ano they are getting the proper salary. In view ot this mailer No Dispute remains to be decided regarding ihe pay- ment oi equal wages for equal work as alleged by tne Union in this case. The workmen are getting all tLe statutory benefits as per agreement. Hence they are not entitled to get any more benefits as claimed by them. This issue is answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 2.—On the reasons stated above, it is held that all the workmen have been regularised by the management as per agreement between the Union and the management. Hence No Dispute regarding the payment of wages exists any more. The workmen are not entitled to the payment of wages as claimed by them. The reference is answered accordingly.

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

K. M. RAT, Presiding Officer ?rf f??5ft, 16 sTfcnn:, 2001

3FT.5TT. 3011.—3ft?ftfW fspTK SfftrfaiW, 1947 (1947 3TT 14) ^ STT^r 17 % %*$<<* t, %?£ta %?sta ?H3iK 5fft 16-10-2001 ^t STTHT f"fr SIT I [*f. rr^T-4201 l/l 5/98- SfTf %i\X (t( %)] New Delhi, the 16th October, 2001 S.O. 3011.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re ation to the management of Central Sericul- tu-al Research and Training Institute and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 16-10-2001.

[No. L-42011I15|98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer6363 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT T K I B U J N A L - C U M - L A B O UR CUUKT, BANGALORE III MAIN, III CROSS, il PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR Dated : 9th October, 2001 PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKURNL B. Com, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R. NO. 86|98

I PARTY

The President, Central Silk Board, Employees Union, New 59, 6th Cross, K. R. Vanam, Mysore-570008. (Advocate—A. J. Srinivasan).

II PARTY

The Director, Central Sericultural Research, and Training Institute, Srirampura, Manandavadi road, Mysore-570008.

(Advocate—Narasimha Swamy).

AWARD

1. The Central Government by c x ^ ^ n s* the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Indusrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42011|15|98lIR(DU) dated 7th September, 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule :—

THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the m^r^Tpmpnt of Central ScricuHural R^e^rch ond Training Institute, Mysore in terminating the services of Shri Javare Gowda, is le<™i ^nd iustifi- ed ? If not, what relief he is en- titled to ?"

2. First party union workman was work- ing with the Second Party v^"n^fprr\pnt. He was dismissed so industrial disrmte is raised.

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

4. The first party union is a registered union struggnng tor tne upliftinent ot workers in the second party. Shri Javare Gowda is an active member of the Umon.

5. The first party workman joined the second m the year 1983 and was allotcd work in the Mud-house Section, where he was required to feed the silkworms and take care of it. Thereafter the firjt party workman was transferred to Agronomy Section, where he was required to do mulberry cultivation. Due to hard work and diligent the first party work- man continuously worked from 1987 onwards and posted to Mulberry Breeding and Genetics Section of the Second Party. He was doing permanent nature of work. He was terminated and relieved from duties w.e.f. 28-1-97 without any le-jal ground.

6. On 1-7-90, Smt. Susheelamma refused employment to the first party workman and promised him that she will call him to work after some days. But he was not called for work. The first party union workman filed writ petition before the High Court of Knrnataka and he was reinstated as per the ord^r of High Court of Karnntaka and con- tinued to work with the second Dirty. Writ petition is di^noscd off holding trnt the first partv is a workman f"nd thf* Second r"orfy is an TrHustry and directed to r ^p tTif^ indus- trial dispute. First party worked continuous- ly and therefore the terminotion is illegal. The termination amounts to retrenchment and mandatory rjrovis'ons of section 25 F, G and H were not followed. First Pnr'y union has prayed to pass awsrd in its favour.

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

8. The Claim petition is not maintainable. It is true that the Second Party is a Statutory Body under the Administrative Con rol of the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India. It is true that the first party union workman was engaged as a mandays casual labour to work in MBG Section at Mysore on daily wages basis. He was taken during 1990 as there was some excess work available at that time. The first party union workman was given work whenever the work was available and he was never employed on a permanent basis.

The workman has not worked continuously. During the year 1990, he remained un- authonsedly absent and did not report for duty theretore his name was removed from the attendance register.

9. It is the further case of the management that the first party voluntarily abandoned the services with effect from 1-7-1990. He filed Writ Petition No. 12012 91 before the High Court of Karnataka and interim order was passed directing the second party to take back the petitioner to duty provisionally and also directed the second party to pay the first party the wages which he was drawing when he was working earlier. As per the interim order, the first party was given work on the same basis and he was paid Rs. 22.70 per day. The writ petition was finally disposed off and it was dismissed by an order dated 11-10-96 and therefore the second party dis- missed the services of the first party in the light of the final orders passed in the above writ petition. The first party workman was never employed on permanent basis. The union is not registered and the case is not maintainable as alleged in para 4 of the coun- ter. There is no victimisation and unfair labour practice. Management for these re- sons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

10. It is seen from the records that the management examined MW1. Workman got examined himself as WW1. I have consi- dered the evidence carefully. I have perused all the documents and I have read the written arguments given t>y the first party and also the decision relied by the first party union work- man. The first party has relied the following decisions :

1. AIR 1982 SC, 854

2. 1993 II LLJ 696

3. 1992 II LLJ 609 (SC)

4. 1999 ILR KAR 4006

5. 2001 I LLJ 742 (SC)

6. 1998 LLR 1001.

11. T have read the above decHo^s mre- fu^v. I h^ve perused the orders of the Hi<*h Court of K>rn^oi:a passed in Writ petition No. 1012 of 1991. ' "*•" 12. The evidence of MW1 is that Jaware Gowda was engaged during 1990 on man- days basis to work as a Casual Labourer. Ex. Ml is the sanction of the management in this regard. Attendance registers are maintained and the name of the workman is incorporated in Ex. M2 to Ex. M5. He says in the year 1991 this workman was not engag- ed. He further says that in 1992 as per the direction made by the High Court of Karna- taka he was engaged as a workman. Ex. M7 is the extract of the work turned out by this workman during his engagement by the Secord Party. He also said that due to ban order made by the Government they are not engaged casual employees.

13. MW1 in his cross examination has stated that in 1993 he was not working with the second party and his evidence is only based on the records produced before the court and he has no personal knowledge. He further says that he does not know that Smt. Susheelamma refused emplovment to the first party w.e.f. 1-7-90 in the Malberry Breed- ing and Genetic Section. He has admitted that letters of Ex. Wl to 5 were given to fhe workman. HP also says in his cross examina- tion rhat fhe first party was di";nii

14. T h^ve re-ad iudg^ent of the H ^h Crnirt nf TfornptiVsi in Wr't Petition N o. 1O1?[Q1. W r it P

(Kr^rtinn tn f^ise tht* ir>r?iief-ri;a1 rl'"rai*p q

15. From the evidence and documents it is clear that the first party workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days. Keeping in mind the principles held in the decisions relied by the workman I am of the opinion that the action of the management is not correct. The workman was working prior to 1990 but the management has not produced anv registers pertaining to 1983 or for subseauent years upto 1990. The High Court of Karnataka has held that the first party union workman is a workman and the second par'v is an Industry. Admittedlv the provisions of section 25 F are not complied with by the management.

16. Taking all this into consideration, it is held that the action of the management is 636:'

Balkrishna Bhawan, bast Ghamapur, Jabaipur. Applicant.

not correct. TSie or>>r ot termination i<- not proper. According J piocexl io piss trie following order :

Versus

ORDER

Tne Gener-il Manager, Gun Carriage Factory. Jabalpur. • • Noivipp];cant.

AWARD

Passed on this 2Js" dav of Seotpmber, 2001 Rt.f- :encc i-> pirtly allowed. The first party union workman is ordered to be r^m-.t^tcd to Ms original post trom the date wli.n he uns refused v/ork. In ihe ghen circumstances back vace*- nte n^t give"\ A.cc^rd'r¹"!'" the lefn^nce t-, disputed r>f.

"Whether the p^'ion of the managenient of Gun Cirri age F?-"trry. Tfib^lpur in r vertin^ Shn G. Venkafeshan T No. 2797 fron thp n^"t ^ Re- -nr ] Suonh'er fo that of i penn as •- tnpo^i <•" <-)f r)iv>i'"'Tv^'"¹'"|t \v, 1eCTal

fiTf! iu^'i^ YI ° 1^ no', vhat relief

^_ Tp r>"-'-t'> ,~,£ ^'T"¹ s^r'i'ir'C of -"f>+ir-r> f l ip v / ^rk~

'•si" i ri ⁵ n o*r >" f i> t"> nn^T^ir I^^'or⁰ t h '" court, TTi- p n r r¹" i - |; cro^c tr> tj^TOW +|->Ti li •> i<5 n ot

/-•(•> ->^' 1 v p ^ f 'n ^ rrni -pf V>"IVI N<^ T^ictnu^p

^\\v""*' '' *~^ "Y fore r)r>cce'i.

1 jTn vi^'s? r>f

hpif¹ fi-iit ^n d icn i iV b°tx"C^Ti t h^ parties

r>Y^ct •-< tiii", c °r" f-*i r f^ ^>-To T^'nPiit^ A w a rd 1<; nT";or'_ T1-f> XT^of¹ t ^ ^ ri ^Q "IQ<- pnf'tlpr! to p ny

of T iiiour nnv-'Tii" ^it of Tpfiji ns nor m]es.

New Delhi, the i dh October, 2001

S.O. 3013.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, {947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunul-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Gun Carriage Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-10-2001.

[No. L-14012/7/97-IR(DU)]

KULD1P RA1 VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/48/97

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

3. The workman further alleges that the manage- ment did not supply the copy of the documents men- tioned in Annexure III annexed with the charge sheet. Those documents were given to him after the period of more than 2 jcars. The Enquiry Officer v,as ap- pointed after the lapse of 2 years Irom the date of service of chargesheet. The workman was not given ample opportunity to defend his case properly during the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submit- ted his report after 1-1/2 years from the date the enquiry was closed. The Enquiry Officer did not per- mit the workman to produce his defence witnesses to prove his defence during the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer wrongly held the charges proved against him. The findjng of enquiry officer is abso- lutely perverse and is based on no evidence. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of Ennuiry Ofticer ;;iU p..ssei! ''... a. :e. of i. .nii.atl.m ..c .st him. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and his punishment of dismissal was con- verted into compulsory retirement. The order passed by the management is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back waees.

Shri Lakhanlal Sonkar, Khatik Mohalla, Bhartipur, Jabalpur.

..Applicant.

Versus

The General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur.

. . .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of October, 200!

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-14012/7/97-IRDU dated 4-3-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :—

4. The case for the management is that the DE conducted against the workman is perfectly just and proper. The workman was given all the relevant docu- ments relied on by the prosecution during the course of enquiry. The workman was given ample opportu- nity by the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses and submit his defence properly. The En- quiry Officer had never prevented the workman from producing his defence witnesses during the course of enquiry. After considering the entire evidence on record, t!,e Enquiry Officer rightly held the charges proved against the workman. The Enquiry was delay- ed due to non-co-ooeration of th*. workman himself. The management had never intentionally delayed the DE as alleged by, the workman. The punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed by the management on the workman is just and proper. The workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed.

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

"Whether the action of the management of the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur in compul- sorily retiring Shri Lakhanlal Sonkar, Ex- Labour w.e.f. 4-1-88 vide its order dated 18-11-87 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

1. Whether the DE conducted against the work-

man is just and proper ?

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead any evidence to prove the alleged miscon- duct of the workman ?

3. Whether the punishment of compulsory re tirement imposed on the workman is jus and proper ?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate

ment with back wages ?

5. Relief a-id costs ?

2. The case for the workman is that he was work- ing as labour in GCF. Jabalpur. A charge sheet of misconduct dated 2-2-82 was served on him by the management. The charge of misconduct was that on 27-1-82 at about 4-5 PM, the workman entered in the office of Foreman (L-70HFAB) and illegally and unauthorisedly interfered in the activity of security personnel and also instigated Shri Ram Avtar Pasi of L-70(FAB) not to tender his statement in connection with surprise check of his locker by the security per- sonnel and took away the forms which were valid documents. Tn this way. the workman committed seri- ous misconduct subversive of discipline. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The management found the reply unsatisfactory and therefore decided to hold DE against him. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and regular enquiry was conducted against him.

6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 : It has been held bv th tribunal on 15-2-2001 tha' the DE conducted again', the workman by the management is just and p-npe The management is not required to lead any forth*6367 evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the work - man. These issues need no further consideration at all.

7. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 : Ins management's v"nnes-> Shri N. C. Mum, Supervisor, BRS, GCF, Jabalpui has clearly stated in his cross examination that m the year 1982 he was working in the Security Depart- ment ot GCF. He does not Know Snn R. C. Pasi ' He had never made any surprise check in respect to the worker Snn R. C. Pasi in GCF, Jdbaipur. He also does not know the workman. He has noi seen an ' document regarding the DE oi the workman. Hi" affidavit was prepared' by the counsel ot ihe manage- ment and he had signed it at the instance of manage- ment. This witness of management nas not supported the commission of any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. In this way, the very witness of the management has not proved the case of the manage- ment regarding the commission oi misconduct by the workman on the relevant date. In view of this state- ment, the charge of misconduct against the workman cannot oe held to be prove. The punishment of compulsory retiiement imposed on the workman is therefore held to be improper. The workman is accordingly entitled to reinstatement. On the principle of No work, No pay. he shall not be entitled to back wages as claimed by him. Both these issues are ans- wered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 5 : On the reasons stated above, it is held that the action of the management of GCF, Jabalpur m compulsoiily retiring the workman Shri Lakhanlal Sonkar is unjust and improper. It is there- fore quashed. The workman shall be entitled to re- instatement without back wages. His absence from duty shall be treated continuous service only for the purposes of pensionery benefits.

9. Parties shall bear their own cost.

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

K. M. RAI, Piesidi.ig OJricei New Delhi, the 17th October, 200!

S.O. 3014.—In pursuance ot Section 17 ot the In- dustrial Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government (vreby publishes the award of the Cen tial Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Saial Hydroelectric Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-10-2001.

[No. L-42012/97/91-lR(DU)] KuLDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CEN f i

Case No. l.D. 12/96

1 he General Secretary, Salai Workers Union, Jyotipuram, Reasi G-183, PO Talwara,

' Reasi (J&K).

..Union-Applicant.

Versus

i he General Manager, Salal Hydroelectric Project, Jyotipuram, Via Reasi (J&K). ..Respondent.

APPEARANCES :

For the Parties : None.

AWARD

(Passed on 6th of September. 2001) The Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/ 97/91-IR(DU) dated 16th of lanuary. 1996 has re- ferred the following dispute under clause (d) of Sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947) to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Salal Hydroelectric Project represented through General Manager in denying promotion to Shri Ram Kishore T. No. S-223 as fitter gra,de-IFl in pay scale of Rs. 210—290 w.e.f. l-il-19t/J and urther promotion as fittei grade~II and fitter srade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 260—430 and Rs. 220—560 w.e.t. 1-3-1984 and 1-7-1989 respectively at par with Balak Ram is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is enittled and with what effect ?"

2. Applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was appointed as helper in the pay scale of Rs 196—232 en 28-5-1980. On 1-7-85 he was promoted in the pay sale of R". 475—785. He was further pn> moled in the pay scale of Rs. 510—815 (Pre-revise) on 1-7-90 as hefpo. L-vter on w.e.f. 1-7-1995 he was promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 530—1080 as helper special. Balak Ram and Thakur Dass were also ap- pointed helper in the pay scale ot Rs. 196—232 on 28-5-80 and 17-11-1980 respectively. They were fur- ther promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 1300—2305 w.e.f. 1-7-89 as Fitter Grade 1 and Fitter Special w.e.f. 1-7-1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400—2440. The cace of the pnN cant was recommended for pro- motion as Fitter Grade III on the ground that he was6368 THE GAZETTE OF INOFA : NOVEMBER 3, 2001 /KARTIKA 12, 192? [PVT. II—SEC 3(iO] also doing the same work at par with Balak Ram and Thakur Dass. J1 was prayed that the Respondent may be directed to place the applicant m the pay scale of Rs. 475---785 as Fitter Grade III w.e.l". 28-5-1980 and in the Grade of Rs. 530—108U m the Fitter Grade II w.e.f. 1-2-1983 and in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1450—2440 as Fitter Special w.e.f. 1-1-1994 with ixll previous benefits.

3. The respondent in reply took preliminaiy ob- jection that the reference is not an industrial dispute being not espoused by substantial number of work- men. The subject matter of the Uispute is not covered U/s. 2A of tlv Act. iy47. The scaie of pay, desig- nations and line of promotions were settled viuc settlement dated 3-4-1986 which is still in force and the relief claimed out side the settlement is barred v the settlement. In parawise reply of the claim it A*as stated that Baiak Ram and Thakur Dass weie appointed as helper in the pay scale of Rs. 196—232 on 28-5-1980 and 17-11-19b0 respectively and were doing the work of fitter from the date of their joining and were qualified for the cxpe. ience of the job. They were again promoted in routine in the scales and promotions were as a result of recommendations of departmental promotion committee. It was admitted that the concerned Asstt. Engineer mentioned aboif Ram Kishore working as fitter for consideration for promotion. Otherwise he was appointed as helper. If he had ever tried to work as ntter that might be in order to get experience for getting promotion at the time when vacancies were notified.

4. On behalf of the applicant no evidence was> produced. On behalf of the management affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar, Senior Supervisor was hied which has not been rebutted on behalf of the applicant.

5. In his affidavit Su.esh Kumar hat, stated thai Ram Kishore was working as helper on 28-5-198J and was granted promotions from time to time accord- ing to his entitlement and in terms of settlement dated 3-4-1986. Shri Thakur Dass and Balak Ram were appointed helpers on 28-5-80 and 17-11-1980 res pectively but were doing the work of finer. The dis pute having been raised by the Union, settlement U/s. 12(3) of the Act, 1947 was airived at on 30-7-1984 vide which they were deemed to have been appointed as fitter grade-Ill notionally in the scale of Rs. 210—290 for the purpose or seniority wiib no monetary benefits. Thereafter they were given time promotion in the scales as fitter only.

6. In view of the statement of Su/csh Kumar, which has not been rebutted on behalf of the applicant. the applicant cannot seek parity with Balak Ram and Thakur Dass who were initially appointed as helper but work of fitter was being taken from them and the dispute having been raised by the Union, a settle- ment was arrived at vide which they were given promo- tions as fitters and thereafter given promotions on the above posts, after consideration by the departmental pi emotion committee.

7. In view of the above, the action ot the maw igc- ment of Salal Hydro Electric Proiect in denying pro- motion to Shri Ram K'shorc. T. No. G. 223 a°* titter grade-Ill in pay scales Rs. 210—290 w.e.f. 1-11-8C and further promotion as fitter giade-11 anJ fitter grade J in the pay scaie of Rs. 260—430 and Rs. 220—560 w.e.f. 1-3-1984 and 1-7-! 989 respectively cannot be said to be unjustified a.id Ram Kishore is not entitled to any relief. The copies of the Awaid be sent to the Mnisii.. U/s. 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Chandigarh,

6-9-2001

J. P. SHARMA, Piesiding Officer New Delhi, the 17th October, 2001 S.O. 3015.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government heieby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial inbunai-cum-Labour Court Chaiidigarh, as shown la the Aincvuic in ibe Industrial Dispute between the employ vis in rclaL'on to the management of B.B.M.B. Naiigal Township and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 17-10-2001.

[No. L-42CM2, i^-'/f. 7-IR(DU,j KULDIP RAJ VERM A, Disk Office, . ANNEXuRE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. SHARV \, PRESIDING OT FI- CER, CENTRAL GOVERW.ENT. INDUSTRIE! TRIBUNAL-CUAi-LAIJyt¹^ COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. l.D. 84,92

Reference No. L-42')12/H7/r?-iR(DU)

Dated 20-7-1992

Chottey Lai Son of Shri Na'iku C ,'o S'-ri R K. Singh, Quarter No. 35-G. R.r.gal Towisnir, District Ronar (Puninb').

. . Workman/Appl'C'int

Versus

Chief Engineer, Bhakra D.nn. RBMB N i-pHi Township (Punjab)

.. . Respondant6369 APPEARANCES:

For the Workman—Sh. R. K. Singh.

For the Management—Sh. R. C. Atri.

AWARD

(Passed on 7th of September, 20ui) The Central Government vide order No. L-izOlz/ 197/87-IR(D.U.) dated 20th of July, 1*92 has re- ferred the following dispute under clause (J) of sub- section (i) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Ace, 1947) to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of BEMB' Nangal f ow"sh:p in terminating the services of Shri Chotley Lai son of Shii Nankoc Helper in Bhakra Mechanical Divi- sion on 1-8-1984 is legal and justified? If n d, what relief the workmnp concerned ;s entitled to?"

2. The applicant filed the statement o:' claim stat- ing that he was employed as skilled mazdoor on daily wages in the Railway Sub Division on 1-9-1982 and was continued employed on daily wcges till 7/83. During 7/83, he had worked for 26 days in Town- ship Division and w.e.f. 1-8-83 in the Railway Sub- division and of the Bhakra Mechanical Division and also in 9/83 in the same very sub division with effect from 3-10-1983 he was appointed as helper in the above said category in the pay scale of Rs. 300—430 and was continuously employe 1 till 30-7-1984 and thus had put in more than 240 days in each com- pleted year of service. His services w'erc however terminated on 1-8-1984 and at the time of termina- tion no seniority was maintained. Juniors to him are continuing in service. Provisions of Section 25-F of the Act 1947 were violated. After termination of his services employment was given to other persons but opportunity of employment was not provided to him. Thus the respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25-F and H of the Act, 1947. It was prayed that the order of his reinstatement with ful] back wages and continuity of service be passed with all ancillary benefits.

3. The respondent in reply has stated 1ih:H the applicant had worked in the Bhakra Mechanical Division of the BBMB Nangal on daily wrges as per the details given below:

Sr. No.

Month

Days 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

10/1982 11/1982 12/1982 3/1983 4/19S3 7/1983 8/1983 9/1983

27 28 °7 27 03 28 26 It was stated that the applicant was given appointment for specific period. No notice was. required LO be given. It was admitted that the persons named by the applicant in the list from Sr. No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 were appointed during 1984 and 1985. It was denied thai person mentioned at serial No. 3 had worked in Railway Sub Division. As regards other persons, it was stated that they v/ere senior most and weie ap- pointed as regular helper. It was stated-that seniority list was maintained as per the instructions.

4. In support of his claim, the applicant has iiLd his own affidavit. Learned representative of the res- pondent was given opportunity to cr~> -examine the applicant. He also filed documents maik amuxure A. B, copy of the Civil Writ Petition mark W2. On behalf of the respondent affidavit of Raubir Singh was filed. The learned representative >-.£ the workman -ilso ciojj- examined him on his affidavit. In the form of docu- mentary evidence copies of the letter-; marked as Ex. M2, M3, M4 were filed and the L'tler of the Desk Officer Ex. M5 was also riled.

5. Heard arguments of the learned representatives of the parties and pursued the record.

6. It has been admitted by the respondent m reply itself that the applicant had worked as under .

Month

Days

s .No.

CVsual Dai'y bas,¹- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Wjrkfhuiged by I. 7. 8. 9. 10. P.

i 0/1982 28 - ii/1982 27 12/1982 28 3/1983 27 4-1983 27 7-1983 03 8/1983 28 9/1983 :6 3-10-1983 lo 30-12-83 8) 2-,-U 10 30-03-8^ 8 9' 16-7-8 4 to 30-U7-S4 45

Workci'iargct' tra K VVorkcSurf-L't ba •,6370 TITZ GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 3, 2001 /KARTIKA 12, 1923 [ R WT T I - - S E C. 3(i;)] 7. It has been admitted that the applicant got regular appointment on 23-9-!9r;3. It is also admitted that the applicant had bsen working as rikshaw pulLr during the intervening period. In view cf th:- above circumstances, it will be proper to award compensa- tion to the application. The respondent is Jin:c^d io pay compensation of Rs. 7000 to ih; applicant with'". two months from the date of the publication of the award failing which the applicant will be entitled

Chandigarh,

{7-9-2001.

J. P. SHARMA. Presiding Ofhcer New Delhi, the 17th October, 2001 S.O. 3016.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dapples Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Anne- xing in ihe Induitrkd Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Institute of Research on BulKke;- c-ud their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 17-10-2001.

[No. L-42012|14299-!R(DU)! KULD1P RAI \ ERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXiJRE

BEFORE SHR! S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAI TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 231)99

The President, Dis'1, Agriculture Workers UIVOP. 3T * |9, Tnwahar Naa;>r, Hi--ir 12500!. " Workman.

Versus

APPEARANCES :

For ihe Workman : NOJJC.

For the Management.—Shri R. K. Sharma.

AWARD

(Passed on 4lh October, 2001) The Central Government vide, gazette notification No. L.-42O12T4-2l99,IRfDU) dated 26th October, 1999 h?.s. reL-rred "the follo-ving dispute to this Tri- bunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of (he Director, Central InsUti'Je nf Research on Buffaloes, Hissar in terminating the services of Sh. Mann Singh S|o Sh. Schan Singh w.e.f. 31-10-90 is just snd legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is tiititled ?"

2. Todi'y the cu e was fbed ft'"toj to pur" ue wi!.b the present reference. In view of the abo^.e since none has put up appear- ane; on b"haif of the workman and no claim state- ment has been filed, present reference is returned to the Cenk^l Government for want of prosecution. CenU;>l Government be infosmed.

Chandigarh,

Dated : 4-10-2001.

S. M. 'GOE-.L, Presiding Officer New Dcihi. the 17th October, 2001 S.O. 3017.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, i947 (14 of 1947), the Ce.i:rr'l Government hc/chy publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labaur Court. Chundijtarh as shown in the Anne- xure ''n 'he Iiidu^.nt'l Dispute b;-:tveen. the employers in reL.uon to .lie m a n ^ n i v iu of Central Institute of Re.ccrch on Rulfaloes Mid their workman which \\H\ r'.-cc-'Ved by the Centra! Government on 17-10-2001.

jN-j. L : : 0 i2 14i;99-IR(DU)J •5171

New D>ih .

SO. 3018.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the BEFORE SHRI S. M. C O I L, PRESIDING OTFU ER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT t v n: SfRIAL F R T B U N A L . - C U M - L A B O UR COURT, CMANDJGARH

Case No. ! D. ?34|99

t * 'he dajii.S \. M4 filed >-y the Management. Thus it can not be hSd 'hat the v mi man had completed 240 days continuous service in one calendar year. I h ' i; JS no e\id'*n

3. In wr ' f i 'Ui'p^ent !'?: p. >pagcmcut has con- tended that tiv u r im n Vis not v applied the peiiod v\ isc detail ol die ^'b-i' isnm in which he had woik- wd iuira 1^74 dnii from She >v"lable record the vtoikm.'M h ul WJil^d .>s i,'i-i 'IK-d ma^door fiom 10 84 to i! SO iptv.ini't'Lii'd) The woikman had not put in continuous ten ice. It is also stated that seniority oi the lUuiv tared workmen were ITJ ijntfinxl 'n ;.cjoid'i,c; vt'h the ;nsf ructions of the H. P. High Court in CWB No. 27 oi 1988 and la \io\v of ihose 'u-.triu lions services of the senior inos" da'Iv r t ed vvoikmen wi.e regularised. It is deiued th n any juiirot to the voiknion was retained in stivic^. it ii also stated that workman had not completed 240 days of scmcc dm ing any consecutive pci'oJ of 12 months

X Wnikimu filed the replication reiterating • the

c!'irn nv.de in the claim statement.

8. l h" representative of the workman contended that junior to the workman were retained in service and fhe;r services Invc been legularised. The wit- ness of the management, M. G Thakur deposed in h'v cross-cx.'iTiination that workman was not work,- . ing within the period of :>x months pror tor i-4-1988 H> his name was not included in the seniority list -prepared as per the in¹ true'ions of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court. 1* is admitted portion that workman WA not woiking with'n the period of six months prior to l-4-!"88. Thus he is not entitled to be included in the -eniori'y list. So there ic- no viola- tion oi Section 25H abo on th* management.

5. The workman filed his own affidavit in support of his cla^n on which opportunity of cn>s-examina- t'on was given to the Representative of the Manage- ment. Flic woikman \ho relied upon the document E\. W2 lu of fresh rvcimt. On behalf of the M-iji. gement anVKmt of M. G. Thakur, Ex. Ml was fil:d The Leprned Representative of the workman Vtis given op'-mtunity for crcs'-examination. The M-ii-'aaenicnt -A^o re] ed on documents Ex. M2 to^ hx M4.

6 Hen * aigumenfs of the Ltarned Representa-

tive IT the p rfies and ptrused the record

9. In view of the discussion made in the earlier paras, since there no v o' 'lion of Section 25-F of th.2 ludu'tr'al Disputes Act, 1947. the workman is not entitled to any iclief. The action of the mana- gement of BBMB lepiLScnted fhrough the Chief Engineer, BBMB in terminating the services of Shu Shamsher Singh bskkr w.e.f. 1974 to Sepiem- bei, 1986 is justified and the workman is not entitl- ed to any relief. The C ntral Government be infpr./>;d US 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19-17.

( handiga.-h.

D-\-d • *-10-2001.

7. \r tlii cate the wos! man hac claimed that he h s worked Inun 1974 to <-)'86 as Beldar with bie iLs. I lo h , not given any detail of his work Tor 'he a b ne penod He has nowhere stated that he has completed 240 days pieceding to the date of termination in one calendar year. The Manage- ment ha- filed Fx. M4 voikJng days of workman 1/OTi 10 84 to 6 86 wlvch

&. M. 'GOEL, Presijfl Printed by thj Manacci, Grvt. of india Prers, Ring Road, New Delhi-] 10064 and Published by the Contioiler of lubUatlons, Dtllii-110054, 200J