This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 47] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2001 /AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(ether than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Rehabilitation Division)

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3182.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Displaced Per- sons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby ap- point Shri R, K, Yadav, Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division as Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner for the purpose of perform- ing the functions assigned to such Joint Chief Settle- ment Commissioner by or under the said Act with immediate effect.

2. This supersedes notification No. l(5)/93-Settle-

ment (A) dated the 28th August, 1997.

[No. 1(3)/2001-Settlement

B, N. LAHIRI, Under Secy 349/ Gl/2001- 1

(6857)r,li5o T l ir GAZLITL OF 1NDI\ : NOVEMBER 24, 2001 AGRAHAYANA 3,1923 [PAR' 11—SIC (V)] New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 S.O. 3183.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 34 oi the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954"), the Central Government hereby direct that the powers exeicisahle by it under Section 33 of tlhe said Act shall be exercisable by Shri R. K. Yadav, Director, Rehabilitation Division, Ministry of Home Affairs.

2. This supersedes Rehabilitation Division¹;, Noti- fication No. H5)/y3-Settlemer.t (B) dated the 28th August, 1997.

[No. 1(3)/ 2001 -Settlement! B. N. I.AH1RE, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 S.O. 3184.—In exercise of the powers conferred sub- Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of Ihe Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), the Central Government hereby direct that the powers exercisable by it under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the said Act Mlinll be- exnvi-nble by Shri R. K. Yadav, DhecU.i in Ihe Mnvsiry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division.

2. This supersedes Rehabilitation Division's Noti- fication No. l(5)/93-Settlenient (C) dated the 28th August, 1997.

[No. l(3)/20O!-Settlement] B. N. LAH1RI, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION (Department of Personnel & Training) New Delhi, 'he 12th Noverrher, 2001 S.O. 3185.—Tn exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the C( de of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 <*f 1974), the Ccitral Government hereby appoints Sh. K.C. Go- swami, Advocate as Special Public Prosecuter for conducting cases instituted hy the Delhi Special Po- lice Establishment in the exclusive Centra] Bureau of Investigation Special Courts at Mumbai.

[No. 2?5'2l/2OOO-AVD.ri(i)]

Hari Singh, Under Secy.

6859 New Delhi, he 12lh November, ;(X)1

S.O. 1186.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred b\ sub-seehen (8) of section _4 of ihe Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (Act Mo 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Rabinder Sabharwal, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conductiong cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the exclusive Central Bu- reau of Investigation Special Courts at Mun bai,

[No. 225/2)/2000-AVD.IJ(ii)]

Hari Singh, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OP FINANCE

Departircn* of Economic Affairs (Irsuranee Division)

New Delhi, he Pth November. 2001 New Delhi, .he II h November, 2001

S.O. 3188.- In exercise of the powers cc n- ferred by sub-iule (2) of rule 13 of ihe Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Emplo- yees (Revision of Terms and conditions <>f sen ice) Rules, 1985, the Central Government heicby deter- mine that, subject to the othei provisions of the said sub-rule, ihe payment in lieu of bonus for the period commencing on 1st day of April, 2000 and ending with 31st March, 2001 lo everv Class HI and Clays IV employee shall be at the rate of 15 percent of h o- lier salary.

[F.No. 2U5)%/ln<,.lMJ

P.C. Singh, Under Secy S.O. 1187.—In ecereise of ihe powers con- ferred by section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Esta- blishment Act, 1946 (Act. No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the folk wing offences which are to he investigated by the Delhi Special Po- lice Establishment, namely :-

(a) Offences punishable under Mines and Mine- rals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957 (67 of 1957)

(b) Attempts, abctments and conspiracies in re- lation to or in connection with the offecnes mentioned in clause (a) above and any other offence or offences committed in the couise of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/1'72001-AVD-lI]

iIan Singh, Under Secy6860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 24, ?t>0l, AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II—Src. (ii)l MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2001 S. O. 3189. -In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of" 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Mr. Bbarat Singh Raw.u, Assistant in the Emabassy of India, Paris to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with eflect from 09-11-2001.

[No. T-4330/1/2001] Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons.) MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVJATION New Delhi, the 12th November, 2001 S.O. 3190.—In exercise of the power con- ferred by Article 40 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited (PHHL), ex-post-facto approval of the President is accorded for entrusting the additional charge of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, PHHL to Shri Anurag Goel, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Civil Aviation for a period of three months with effect from 17-09-200) or till the appointment of new incumbent, whichever event occurs earlier.

[No. AV. 13015/032/2001-VE] P. S. RADHAKBISHNA Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD- CASTING

New Delhi, the 30lh October, 2001 S. O- 3191.-In exercise of the power* conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) xead with rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification Rules 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Vijay Anand as Chairman, Central Board of Film Certification in an honorary capacity from the 26th September, 2001 for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[File No. 809/1/2001-F (C)] RAJESH SHARMA, Desk Officer New Delhi, the 9th November, 2001 S.O. 3192.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of rule 10 of the official language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following sub-ordinate office of the Chief Controller of Accounts (Ministry of Information and Broad- casting), the stall' where of more than 80% have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

Pay and Accounts Office, Doordrshan,

Nagpur

[No. E-ilOll/l/93-H.ndil S. S. KATARIA, Director (OL) MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 29th October, 200!

SO 3193—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Gove> -rnent Industnal Tribunal, Japalpur as shown m the Annexure in the Industnal Dispute between the employers in relation U the management Central Warehousing Corn and their workman, which was received by the Cential Government on 17-10-2001

[No L 42012)21 |92-IR(M)i

B M DAVID, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVFRNMENT INDUSTRiAf TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABAI PUR CASE NO CGIT|LC|R|125|94

Presiding Officer Shri K M Rai

Shu Kartik Rao Didhi, Gram Monng, Teh Mahasamund, Distt Raipur Applicaa* Versus

The General Manager, Central Ware Housing Corpoiation 52. 53, Amai Niwas, New Market, TT Nagar, Bhopal Non-appli^an¹

AWARD

Passed on this 3id day of October, 2001 1 The Government of India Ministry of I abou> Older No I -42012-21 |92-lR(Misc ) dated 29-7-94 has reiei. the folloing dispute foi adjudication bv this t .bunai—

' Whether the action of the management of C <\< Ware Housing Corpoiation m discharging ih>, services of Shri Kartik Ram Didhi Wtichm, assistant, Gr II at Raipur w e f 30 1 88 is 'ej ' and justified ⁹ If not, to what relief the wo km i is entitled to ⁷"

2 The case foi the woikman is that he was appointed Ware House Assistant Grade II vide order of the manage ment dated 2-6 86 for a period of 3 months on da'ly rate basis Thereafter his period of employment was extended from time to time The mamcement nevei imposed in> condition for cle iring the test of typing for reauhnsition at the time of issuing the appointment order On this account

6861 his seiviccs w^ie terminated vide Older dated 30 1-88 Befoie terminating his semees, neithei any notice was scived on him noi jnr.t.nuiinuH compensation was paid to lnm aecoi ding io trie piuvisioub of bee 23 F oi the I D Act, 19t/ lh^ pa sons junio to liiin have bt.cn itfeiiidiiot.il Ly die management

1 Whethei the workman is entitled to regulai isation with back wages

2 Relief and costs '

5 Issue No 1 —Admittedly Shri Rajendra Kumar, Shu Shivarayan, Shu Kumar Khubani, Shri Rajendra Kumar Veima and Miss Nisha Pawaiyya were appointed as Ware House As istant Grade II along with the piesent workman for a peiiod of 3 months only Fheir penod of employment was also extended fiom time to time They also appeared in the test for rtgulansation to the post of Ware House Assistant, but they could not succeed The management iciminated then '•emccs along with the woikman w ef 31-1 88 They raised the similai dispute and the Goveinment of Indn made a leferen.e vide orde No L 15O12[4|88 D-3(B) dale i 9-3 89 as under —

'Whethei the action of the management of Cential Waiehousing Corpoiation Regional Olice Bhopal in terminating the sei vices of Shi Rajendra Kumar Shu Shivnaiayan Shnvas Shri Kumar Khubani, Shu Rajcndn Kumar and Miss Nisha Pawahyya, War<*hou e Assistant Grade II w ef 31-1-88 is justified If not, what itlief the woikman is en titled to r)"

6 1h prcie"ad lefei^nte was le&istercd as R-63189 and the award was passed by this tubunal on 9 3 92 This tn buna] cleariy held tint the workman weie not ent'tled to re tulaiisation The o,d.i of termination wis held to be just aid p'cpei fhis awaid was nevei challenged befoie any coipstent couit In this way it has become final68o THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • NOV 24, 2001/ \GRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II - S FC 3 ( I O] 8 Adm tteJly the wort men could no* !ei: the * st ihucj for regulaiisation as Wart House A'sistait accor Ijn' to tht lecruitment rules with out clearing the test, no person can claim the light to the said post The -workman WPS given tempoidiy appointment loi a penod of 3 months only with out following tie p'opti proi.edu,c in gi\mg him appo n'- rnent as Waie House Assistant He was also even refren"*¹ inert compenation pi id to terminsation of his service In view of aH these facts m illegality has bee i committed bv rh management m teiimnatmg the seivices w ef 31-1-88 On the reasons and propsi The woikman cannot claim ttegu'ai isation to the post as a matter cf right This issue is answered cccoidingly

9 Issue No 2 —In view of my findings gnen on issti<" No 1, it is held that the order of termination passed by the management on JO 1 88 is just and piope ' n"

10 Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India Mimsirv of I abour as per rules

k M RAI, Piesidinu Office No DJhi the 29th October, 2001

SO 3194—In pursuant of Stct on 17 of the Indu"tnJ D spute AU 1947 (14 of 1947) ihe Central Government hen. by i 1' si c , (he awaid of the Central Government Industnal Tnbunal Bhubaneswai as shown in the Annexure in the Industnal Depute between the employers in lelation to Ine rijna'fment Paradip Port Tru<-t and then workman, winch was iixenul by the Central Governmen on 16-10 2001

[No L-33011/7/85-D IV(A)1 B M DAVID, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

Cl NTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUV LABOUR COURT BHUBANFSWAR PRi SLNT

H II S K Dhal OSJS (Si Branch) Piesidmg Officei, C G I T -cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswai

11 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO 89/2001 Date oi conclusion of hearing 24th September, 200] Date of Pas"ina Awaid—9th October, 2001

BETWE EN

The Management of Pradip Port Tiust P iiadip

D.st Cuttack

l-,t Paity-Managcment

AND

Th i Woikmen represented through ]ii cuauya Banda Mazdoor Sangha. Glvnagolia Peiiaoip Port, Cuttack

2nd Paity-Umon APPI ARANCLS

Mi Saroja Kumar Mishia For the 1st Party- Management.

VHI Dolagobmda Dash

General Secretaiy For theh 2nd Party- Union

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Laobur, in exeici^c of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub section (1) and sub .ection 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industtial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have lefened the following d spute foi adjudicduon vide their Order No L-33011/7/85-D IV(A), dated 29 12-1989 —

Whether the 3 demands raised by the Bhaiatiya Bandar Mazdooi Sangh Paradip Port on the Management of Paiadip Port Trust, Paradip (as contained in then charter of demands dated 8-6-1984) arc justified f It so what relief aie the Workmen con- cerned entitled to ⁹ '

2 D e ca->e of the 2nd Party-Union may be stated in brief—

On b f -1984 a chaiatu of demands was submitted to the 1st Paily Management by the 2nd Party Union with a prayer to fulfil the same within 45 days These are the followma ui m.ind<- of the 2nd Party-Union.

I That, the list ot cargo handling woikers prepared by the Port Tiust does not reflect the inter se senionty of the workers Some of the juniors have been shown as seniors and seniors as juniors in conse- quence of which certain benefits which the sen'Ors ne eniitled to as a matter of right have been denied to them,

II Some woikers who had been continuously working since begming ot the Port till 1980 have been arbi tranly omitted from the list of workers prepared by the Port Trust in 1980 under the Cargo Handling Scheme Those workers who have been omitted fiom the main list are mentioned in Annexure-I to the chartei of demands and those workers who have been omitted fiom the stand-by list have been shown m Anne\uie II thereof,

III Many old workers who have been put in the categoiy of unlisted workers should have been put m the i egular list

Accoidmg to the 2nd Paity UiTon when the Paradip Port st i ted functioning the workers were being engaged througn d 11 ient contractois and stevedoies There was no systematic m<_ nod of employment lesulting laboui unrest, intra-umon nvahy wh ch ultimately affected mdustial peace and harmoney Thtu was a legislation in 1980 known as Dock Woikers ( Re dilation of Employment) Act applicable to Paradip Port but there was no Dock Labou' Boaid at Paiadip to implement the 'cheme However m view of Section 42 of the Major Poit Tmst Act 1963 which empowers the Board of Trustees of the Major Ports to undertake various services mentioned thiicin the Management of Paradip Port framed Cargo Handling Workeis (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1979 As laige numbei of workers were working under different contractor, and Stevedores at the Port, all could not be accommodated und"i the

(i) The vanous lists submitted bv diffetent contnetors st-vedoies and Unions at different times are to be verified and the list common to all the list to be prepared which would be t h' common list (1)) Poisons whose names were in the common list but not woiking in the Poit for more than one year would not be registered.

66oi

it) Semonty or length of woik in this Poit would be

tue criteria toi listing in list J or main list Veiifica tion regaiding working will be based in the recoids available with conti?Ltois This cntena was laid down as per tilt minutts of discussion dated 22 2 (979 and 24 2-1979

v* as pud,, in consultation with tht m ijor unions and petitioners n O JC No 157 o. 1980 loi dividing them into different .,anei Tlit list | ublishtd in t'lat iesard did not leflect the stnioi iy oi tic woikers as Ivcause ot workers were taken nto wy-o hand! n sdieine on a single dltc le on 16 2 1980 So th dlt-J it en cf the VvOikiiicn lhat one Sashi Bhusan Fat'n .u y and Surtndia Bt>cra who weie pieviously placed m dane vfo 23 ha\i been in't d to Gang*. No 43 The \1 luaSftmuU can not chanae tht, aning"menf aheady made bee usi ( vouiii \tdd uch condit ons is that a pet son claim na 'o b tnli ted in Mich scheme must have worked m tht fe,( foi suffiuem ptnod pi oi to i ll 1977 keeping in viev t/ic cntena fb" list v\ is pit^ared and finalised 1 mi ing the sti pet¹! of woikers to 1700 The 1st Paity Management fur her sii! mit _d t!,at no iltenation o aJdnon of the list could be made in v cvv of the specific duecti n of the Hon ble Hi"h Court cf Orissa in t \o wnt pjt'ions nam^lv O JC J\O 2276 of 1%5 mil 2s9 of 1986 The Hon ble Court were pleased lo d lect trn 1st Party Management shall not enlist any o*h r workus m the miin list until the standby li^t in question is txh ust d The 1 t Paity Management has stionclv ole d ti th ,t tf~s present affected vvoikeis had not woiked in the Port for i sufhc er>t pencd pr or lo 1 11 1977 so theT nanu cm not be enlisted

4 In view of the above pleadmc^ of the p uties the follewina

issues have bren settled —

I Whether the refeience is mamta mble n

II Whether the disputes which have been leferred for adjud cat on are Industrial Disputes withm the rminine of the ID Act⁹

III Whether the cLm)ndc made bv the Bharatiya Bandar Ma^dooi Sanah which a>e refened for adjud cation are bad on the "louid That those have become stale °

ditional cvid:nc: it Ihcy so desire on the question to enl'stmcnt. it may be stated here that some person appeared before the Hon'blc High C\ urt in O.J.C 80 and 81 of 1994 claiming themselves to be the woikeis whose names were not enlisted. The Hon'blc High Couit 'were pleased to d.rect that they shou'd anpcai brfote Ihc Tribunal to ra.se their grievance. The oidei in O T C. 4091/1992 \VP . passed by the Ilon'ble High Court on 26-11-1996 On receipt of the direction from the Hcn'bl.' Court, both the parties were given opportunity to adduce additional. In pursuance of the said dVoction no fuithcr rv denee was adduced on behalf of the 2nd Partv- Union. The Management has c

woikcrs as n'.-r Annexutc I and II to the Chaiter of Demand (m-iiked as'1x1.-13) have been omitted ftom the main list as well as ftom the subsidiary list by the 1st Party-Manage- ment. That apart, the inter-se-seniority of the workers v, nose names find place in the list has not been maintained. On the other h.ind it has been submitted on behalf of the 1st Patty-Management (hut in view of the criteria fixed between the parties the names of 156 workets as per Annexure I and ft could not be hated as they have not fulfilled the criteria. The Tribunal while passing an Award on 24-1-1992, accepted ihe cis" of the workmen and directed to list the 156 workers as per Annexure-1 and II. While accepting the case of the Union, the Tnbhnal had relied upon the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Union, notice to the leserve pool (which is now called as Bharatiya Bandar Mazdoor Sangh), the list of workers sub- mitted by the Union under Ext.-10 and letter of the Manage- ment which has been exhibited as Ext-6 and the employment pa"s winch has been exhibited as Ex-15 series. The Hon'ble Court while remanding the case have been pleased not to accept the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. The follow- ing observations have been made by the Hon'ble Court in Para-34 of the order, dated 26-11-1996, passed in O.J.C. No. 4091196.

7 After temand order of the Hon'ble Court a jomt veri- fication has been rmde regarding enlistment of the workers by both the paities by the order of the Tribunal and the said joint verification report has been filed which has been exhibited in this case as Ext. 22. The representative of the Management and the representative cf the Union have signed in the said ioint verification repoit. No objection has been raised on the joint \enfication report (Ext. 22) filed before the Tribunal.

I5SUt No. I & 11

FINDINGS

8. In my opinion, no discussion rs necessary in respect of ihese two issues. Both the issues were answered in favour of the Union by the Tribunal. Though the Hon'ble Court did not agree with the reasons Riven by the Tribunal but were pleased to confiim the findings of the Tribunal that, the disputes raised come within the definition of the In- dustrial Dispute and so the reference is maintainable. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Court, T am of the om'nion that no further discussion is necessary. Hence Issue No. I & II are answeied in favour of the 2nd Party-Union.

ISSUE No. Ill

9. Coming to this Tssue, same tvpe of submission has been made before the Tribunal as d-one earlier before the Presid- ing Officer, Industrial Tr ibunal. It is submitted on behalf of the 1st Party-Management that since Paradip Port Trust Cirgo Handling Workers ("Regulation of Employment) scheme was framed in the vear 1979 and the main list as well as subsidiary were published in the year 1980 the present dispute which was raised in the year 1989 has become stale, according to the 1st Party-Management the dispute ought to have been rared with'n three years from the dote of the publication of the list and the same having not been done the decision in the prerent case if at all goes in favour of the affected workers it would amount to non-settling of the dis- pute. On the other hand Mr. Dolaaobinda Dash, represen- tative of the 2nd Party-Union has strongly urged that, the Tribuml while passing Award did not accept the submission made on behal* of the 1st Party-Manaeement. Moreover, when th" said findings of the Tribunal has not been set aside bv the Hon'He High Court while remanding the case it would be presyrrH that th~ findings of the Ti ibunal. (bat the proceeding ;s not n stale proceeding can not be re-agifafed acain on hernif of the 1st Party-Management No doubt no ^nncific oh— ,''on has h<>en made bv the Hon'ble Court in r>"n-w of ti,n rscv" While rimand'n™ the matter the rWi'We Hi"'i C"ir* were pl-iscd to dire-t to reronstf'r the Question of enlishmenf of 156 workers in the light of the observations made in the judgement FT in that case T icrree vith Mr Dol "ibindi Dash thp* it would be presumed th-rt the find'ticrc of the T'ibunPl that the proceeding is not a stale proceeding h?s not 1->een c">t -side ,nnd this Tribuml i\ not reaii'Ved to re-exim^e the si'd Tssue a^in <5o this \"\'s is nlsO answered in favour of the 2nd Party-Union TC^TTF Mr-, TV

10. As far as tfhs Issue is concerned the findings of the

"This brings us to the question whether or not the Industrtal Ti ibunal was justified in ordering enlist- ment of 78 persons in each list, the main list and the subsidiary list. It an admitted position that en- listment of workers in the main and subsidiary lists was not automatic. It has to be on the basis of verification of base records and subject to the concerned employee fulfilling the criteria that was agreed upon. It is the case of the management that the enlistment was strictly on that basis. Also it can not be denied rather it is an admitted position that in the petitions which were disposed of earlier this court had also directed the authority to con- sider the case of an employee for enlistment on verification of relevant base records subject to ful- filment of the conditions and qualifications, or in other words the criteria laid down in the scheme. Reference to these petitions has been made in the earlier part of this judgement. We, therefore, fail to understand as to how in the absence of verifica- tion of the base records and without caring to see whether or not said 1 56 persons whose enlistment has been ordered bv the Tribunal fulfilled the requir- ed criteria, a direction was issued by the Tribunal for enlistment of these persons, though for the purpose of seniority it required the petitioners to fix the same on the basis of the base records. As admitted, enlistment was to be in terms of the scheme and in accordance with the conditions and criteria aereed upon and the same was also accepted by this court in the earlier petitions, we feel that the Tribunal was not justified in completely ignoring the same. The Tribunal could not deviate as it would amount to laving down new criteria which mav give rise to various complications including the fresh I'nre^t nmonr the workers in the subs'd'arv list which was prepared earliei and which in terms of this court's order in OJC No 2276 of 1985 and OIC No. 259 of 19R6 was to be first exhausted before anv further enlistment in the main list. No doubt, n reference has been rmde to the documents (Ext. 15 series') but thev do not indicate that the said pmilow" w°re in fact "vO-kin" for a fa>'rlv 1r>n<* period nrior to th~ rut off dsre i.e 1-11-77 These docunrnts could pot be taken to be. the substitute fo- the base records and thP agreed uimn criteria. Fiir+W the Tribunal completely overlooked the fact that the verification was to be on the basis o* the u-m ,pro--dc of the r i SF nnd not the records of some on'on which rmv not even be in existence at thr>+ "n -,* (\f f'm" In view of the d'sci'soinns made ibove trr d;rec':on nf th" Tribunal orrterirm er>- i;otm"-n nf 7S ^rso"': in th~ main 1i"t (Xist-D and ⁷⁰ persons in the subsidiary l>'st (J ;sf-TD can not be substained"

Tribunal has no' be"n set aside bv the Hon'ble Court whi'e remanding the c-s". ^o in that case, the Misc Case No 5lS? which was filed imcbr section 33-C (1) of the Tndustrhl D.spnte Act was for claim of monev This Misc C^e has rot ni relev,i"Cv for tj ,e p r c s e nt reference. Tn mv opinnn the present dr^me hiving not been the subject matter in the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 5|83 the Workmen are not esto-m-d to ra - *he same Hence, this Issue is nl o aiswe, ed m favour of the 2nd Party-Union T^SUP NO. V

-, VnThU Ts

12 From this it would prpeir fW th? materials avn'inMe on behilf of the 2nd Oartv-TTnion were nr>* sufficient fo rome to the eonrlnsior, th-i* th° wo"kers who hpv- claimed to be listed in f"Cf were Work<"nre f-.r ^ foi,1v lo nr period prior to fie cut off date re 1-11-1977. In my opinion that, is why the Hon'ble Court were pleased to direct both the parties to place additional evidence. But the 2nd Party-Union has not availed that opportunity though the 1st Party-Manaae- ment has adduced the evidence of one witness. On the othei hand both the paities had agreed for a joint verification and accordingly after verification a joint report has been filed before the Tribunal, which has been exhibited as E\t- 22. Fxt 12 Uovs not support the case of the 2nd Party-Union because no materials were found on verification that the vvoikiM- ehim

13. M> Dolagobinda Dash, representative of the 2nd Paity- Un'em while making argument has advanced a lengthy argu- ment touching upon the social justice, miseries of the work- men and d lay in iTsposal without eonrng to the actual issue. In the couise of the argument. I asked Mr. Dash to place any mater als either oral or documentary to satisfy the Tribunal that, the vw.kers who had claimed to be listed had worked for considerable p?riod prior to the cut off date i.e. 1-11-1977 I also asked Mr. Dash to explain this Tribunal whether he had taken the opportunity to adduce additional evidence for which direction was given by the Hon'ble Comt. But, Mr. Dash has tried io establish his case on the avaible materials. According to h;m no additional evidence is necessary in support of the'r c-se He has tried to satisfy this Tribunal relying upon the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the 2nd Patty-Unj'van and the certified copy of the order passed in Misc. Case 5-13 (exhibited in Ibis case as Ext.-2/C) and non- appearance of the Parties in OTC No. 80/94 and 81/94.

14. First, I will come to the oral evidi nee. Out of nine witnesses examined on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe that the evidence of the Witness No. 1 and Witness No. 2 are not relevant for the purpose of answering the reference. The other witnesses hrve stated like a parrot, that thv hav workd for a consi- derable wriod, prior to 1-11-1977. The Hon'ble High Court have been pleased to make the following observations JJS regards oral evidence is concerned vHch has been produced bv (he 2nd Parly-Urn'on.

"The evidence of Witness No. 1. Srikanta Parida, and Witness No. 2 Sr'dar Jena, is not relevant ps it does not relate t<-> demand No 2 rai.sed on behalf of the workmen Witness No 3, Srin?r Mahalik. Witness No 4, -Sanatan Ron'. Witness No 5 Purna Parid < Witness No. 6. Budhiram Ghaedi. Witness No. 7. Prahalfld Prustv and Witness No. 8, BaidyanaTh Prusfv stated they were working in the Port since lonq [>nd then^ cessary documents were not *£vith them as these hid been handed over to the Union " 15. So in view of the above observations the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union was not sufficient to establish that the woikers claimed to be listed had worked for a considerable period prior to 1-11-1977. Mr. Dash who had been examined as Witness No. 9 on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union had referred to Ext.-15 series (which are the employment cards) to satisfy the Tribunal that the workers had worked for a consideiable period prior to 1-11-3.977. Though the Tribunal accepted those documents but the Kon'We Hi eh Court have been piea^e to deserve that, those documents d.'d not indicate that the said employees were in fact working for a fairly long period to the cut oc date i.e. 1-11-1977. So in my opinion, the submission made on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union bv Mr. Dash that the oral evidence is sufficient to accept the case of the 2nd Partv-Union can not be accepted.

16. Coming to the non-appearance oc the parties who were appeared before the Hon'We High Court in OJC 80)94 tfnd SI' 94, it is submitted bv Mr. Dash, who is appearing on behalf of Tne 2nd Pa,r?y-Umon, that the parties whd claimed to be the workers to be listed and fowht before the Hon'ble Hi<*h Court w OJC R0'94 and 81(94 did not appear before the TribunM nnu th^t would TO to 'how that, they had no case and the case of the ?nd Party-Union was established I am not inclined to accept the submission made bv Mr. Dash in this leaard No doubt, some ners-ons appeared befole tfi" HonWe Hi eh Court in OJC 80194 and 81194 clainfne them- selw; to he the wrvl-er to be listed in the list. The Ron'hl- Court while remitting b-rk the Award p a wl by the Tribune' in trie v "r 1992 directed them to anpefir before the Trrbimn? to renaitite the m;>tt-r Admittedly *hev hive not rm.iV anr~,nnn" h,.for0 t h ls T r i b,I 1 1 a, „.,, thm d o e, mf mem f f m( the r.nse of the 2nl Party-Union has been established. The 3^97 GI/2001—2

6865 dispute has been raised at the instance of the 2nd Party- Union. In my opinion, the initial burden lies on them to c tablish then case without taking advantage of the weakness of the others. So the non-appearance of the parties of OJC WM and 81 94 would not be a ground to presume that the case of the 2nd Party-Union has been established.

17. Coming to the third submission made on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union that in view of the compiomise made bet- ween the parties in Misc. Case No. 5|83, it would be presum- ed that the 1st Party-Management has accepted that she work- ers who had claimed to be listed had worked for a consider- able long period prior t0 1-11-1977. The Misc. Case 5(83 was, filed claiming for monetary relief by some workers. That was compromised between the paities. The Tribunal while passing Award in the year 1992 refuse to consider this Misc. Case on the ground that this has got no relevancy for answer- ing the reference. T am also of the same view. Even if the Ext-1412 series are taken into consideration I am of the opinion that those document^ did not support the case of the 2nd PaUy-Union. In the list claims have been made for the year 1977, 1978, 979 onwards. Those documents did not indicate that a particular person had worked for a consider- able long period prior to 1-11-1977. For example claim has been made in respect of one worker namely Shri B. Ghadai, at SI. No. 1 for Rs. 6 for the year 1977. So that is not suffi- cient to sav that Shri B. Ghadai had worked for a consider- able long period prior to 1-11-1977. So in my opinion, the Ext.-14 series on which much reliance has been placed bv Mr. Dash is not sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that the workers who had claimed to be listed had worked for a •onsiderable period prior to cut off date 1-11-1977.

18. Lastly, a faint attempt has been made by Mr. Dash that award be passed to enlist the names of the workers a^ per Annexure I and TT as per Ext.-7|1. The Tribunal while parsing an Award in the year 1992 have also referred to Fxt.- 711 in Part-13, As per Fxt. 7|1, discussion was held on 25-3-19S9 and it was decided that the workers must havj worked in loading and unloading at the Port prior to 1-11-1977. Mr. Dash has submitted that, as per Ext.-7)1 it was decided that, the workers who have worked after 1-11-1977 also to be listed. Clause—C of the proceeding vt the meeting (Ext -7(1"> envisages that, as regards to prioritv of liftinp of workers it wns aereed upon by all the Unions that the priority won'd be civen to the persons who are nctuallv worVine m the Port at present as per their seniority i e. length of their working ne^od in th eParty. T am unable to ssree with Mr Dash that this Clause—C provides to list the workers who have worked after cut off date i e. 1-11-1977.

19. As ner mv above discussion. T am of the opinion, thnt the 2nd Partv-Union has failed to establish bv producins either oral or doeumentarv evidence that the workers as per Anne^ire-I and TT hid worker" far a considerable period nnor to t-11-1997 to b° enlisted in the main and <"Wdarv list. Hence, this >Ts"de io answered wainst the 2nd Pnriv- Union.

ISSUF NO. Vf.

20 Tn \iew of mv fir din"* s"iven in resoect of Issue No, V the Wo'-''nun an- r>o' entitled to any relief.

21 Reference i^ l e v e r ed accordinelv.

S K DHAL, Pres'dinp Officer6866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 PART II -SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 29th October, 2001 S.O. 3195.—In pursu;.nc- of Section 17 of the Industrial Deputes Act, 1947 I 14 of 1947), the Cenf.al Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Couit, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexuie, in 'he industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Dalli Mines of BSP and their workmen which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on the 17-10-2001.

["No. L-29O12|138|98|1R(M)1 B. M. DAVID. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. JABALPUR, M.P. CASE NO. CGIT|LCfRiV891[99

Shri Lakhan Lai, Slo. Anjori, C|o Shri Sahadev Sahn, Tabler Set. At & PO Dalli-Raihara Durg Workman.

Vs.

. Management.

1. The President, Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd., PO : Dalli-Raihara, Durg 2. The Mines Manager, Dalli Mines of BSP, PO : Dalli Rpjhara, Dursr.

AWARD

(Passed on this 25th Day or Sep. 2001) 1. The Government of India. Ministry of Labout, vide order No. L-29012|138|98[IR(M), dt. 5-2-1998, has referred this dispute for adjudication as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Shramik Sahakari Samui Ltd., a contractor of BSP at Dalli Mines in terminating the services of Shri Lakhan Lai w.ef. 8-5-1997 is justified ? If not. to what relief he is entitled?"

2. The management has objected the maintenance of this reference before this Tribunal. Their contention is that the workman was employed by Shramik Sahakari Saniifi 1 id . Dalli-Raihara. His services were terminated w.e.f. 8-5-1997. He challcneed his order of termination before the Asstt. Reeistrar, Co-operative Societies. Durg, under the Provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The provisions of I D. Act shall not apply in the present case The workman had the remedy under the provisions of M P. Co-onerative Societies Act only and not under the prov'sions of 1 D Act 1947 3. Tt is admitted fact that the workman was never tmp- loyed bv the Bhilai Sfeel Plant. He was employed bv t're management Shramik Sah;>kari Simiti Ltd.. a contractor of BSP at Dalli-Raihara Mines. In this way. there was no relationship of Master and Servant between the mana Act |Qd7 n" 1r"'d d^wn hv ihe Sunrem" Co"r* in V.C T''w>rt vs MP Raiya Sah?kari Mkta. Federation ltd., f 1997) 5 SCC. page 125

4. In view of the farts stnfed above, it is held that ihis reference is nor maintainable before ,'h>s Trfhuml Th° workman is not entitled to ?nv rel'ef under thf nravisions of I.D. Act 1947 Reference is answered .iccord'ngiy.

5. Copv of the award He <;"nt to the (government crt Tntfii. Mini"frv of Lihour, New Deifv. for publication as per ml-.

IC. M. RAT. Presiding Offj-er New Delhi, the 29th October, 2001 S.O. 3196.—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. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of DALLI Mines of BSP and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 17-10-2001.

[No. L-29012'136|98-IR(M)l

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR, M.P. Case No. CGITlLC(R) (88)!99 Shri Sunder Lai, So. Shri Ram Prasad, C o. Sahadev Sahu, Tabler Set, At & PO : Dalli-Raihara, Durg.

. . Workman.

VS

1. The President, Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd., PO : Dalli-Rajhara Dura. • • Management.

2. The Mines Manager- Dalli Mines of BSP. PO : Dalli-Rajhara. Drug.

AWARD (Passed on this 25th Day of September, 2001) I. The Government of India. Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-29012'136i98iIR (M) dt. 5-2-1999 has referred this dispute for adjudication as under :—

"Whether the action of the management of Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd. a contractor of BSP at Dalli Mines in terminating the services of Shri Sunder Lai w.e.f. 8-5-1997 is justifi- ed ? If not, to what relief he is en titled ?"

2. The management has objected the main- tainance of this reference before this Tribu- nal. Their contention is that the workman was 'employed by Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Dalli-Rajhara. His services were terminated w.e.f. dt. 8-5-1997. He challenged his order of termination before the Asstt. Registrar. Co-operative Societies, Durg, under the Pro- visions of M. P. Co-ODerative Societies Act. The Provisions of I.D. Act shall not apply in the present case. The workman had the remedy under the provisions of M. P. Co- operative Societies Act only and not under the provisions of I.D. Act 1947.

3. It is admitted fact that the workman was never employed by the Bhilai Steel Plant. He was employed by the management of Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd., a contractor of BSP at Dalli-Rajhara Mines. In this way. there was no relationship of Master nnd Ser- vant between the management of BSP and the workman. He was the employee of Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd., He had the remedy to challenge the order of dismissal from services under the provisions of M. P. Co-ODerative Societies Act and not under th? Provisions of I.D. Act 1947 as laid down by the Supreme Court in RC Tiwari Vs. M. P. Rajya Sahakari Mktg. Federation Ltd., (1997) 5 Sec, page 125.

4. In view of the facts stated above, it is held that this reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The workman is not entitled to anv relief under the provisions of I D. Act 1947. Reference is answered ac- cordingly.

5. Copy of the award be sent to thp rJ^v.-rn- ment of Tndia. Ministry of Labour. New Delhi, for publication as per rule.

K. M. RAT, Presidins Officer

6S67 New Delhi, the 29th October, 2001 S.O. 3197.—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, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- met B.T.O.P. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-10-2001.

[No. L-29012'33'92-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LAROUR COURT, JABALPUR

CASE NO. CGIT'LC'RU20 93 Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai Smt. N. A. Lai, Through General Secretary. Samyuktha Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), PO Kirandul, Distt. Bastar.

. . Applicant.

Versus

The General Manager, B.I.O.P., Dep. No. 14, Kirandul. Distt. Bastar. . . Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of October. 2001 1. The Government of India. Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012'33'92-IR (Misc.) dated 3-6-93 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the manf^ment in resoect of Smt. N. A. Lai T. No. 12046 is fair and justified ? Tf not, who' roiicf the noTlrvin is en- titled ?"6863 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II-SEC. 3(U)] 2. The workiiiun renamed abo^nt mspiie ol service of notice on her. She does not appeal to be interested in per u n? hT c H ^. In view of this fact, no dispute exists between the pirlies in the present case.

3. On the above said reasons, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties. Hemx No Dispute Award is passed. The workman is net entitled to any relief as claimed by her.

4. Copy of the award be sent to the Govern- ment ot India Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAL Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 29th October, 2001

SO 3198—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industual Disputes Act, 1 "47 (U of 947), the Central Government hereby publishes die award of the Central Government fn- dusual Tnbuaal, Bangaloie as shown in the Annexure

[No L-26012|22|93 IR(M)1 B. M DAVID, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTR1 \L TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKURROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 9th October, 2001

PRESENT .

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

CGIT CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGAIORE

C. R No 73194

I PARTY

The President, Kudremukh Shram Shakthi Sangathan, B-398, Sector II, Kudremukh-577142 (Advocate-Padkhe)

II P<\RTY

The Chan man and Managing Director,

Kudi emukh Iron Ore Lid, Koiamangala, Bangalore-560034 (Advocate-K. Kes>tun)

AWARD

Ihe Cential Govcinment by exercising the poweis con- leired by clause (d) ot sub-secuon 2A oi Section 10 OL the rndu&tnal Disputes Act, 1947 has refened this dispute vide ordei No L-26012|22,93 IR(Misc) dated 25th August 1994 tor aljud cation on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

' Whethei the management of Kudiemukh Iron Oie co Ltd is justified m reducing the pay to the minimum of the scate in respect of S|S>hw S. Venkatia/a, Suryakanth Chante and S R Kubera Setty? If not, lo what lelief they are entitled?"

2 Fust pait> was woiking with the Second Party. Ine management reduced the pay of the first party union work- men S| Shri S Venkatraya, Suryakanth Chante and S R. Kubcia S>eity Tiieiefoie this dispute is raised rjy the union 3. Paities appeared and filed Claim Statement and Countei lespcctively.

4. The case of the lirst paity union workmen, S|Shn S Veukatraya, Suiyakanth Chante and S R. Kubera Setty aie as follows .

5. The management is in the habit of suppressing trade union activists on one pietext or the other and never hesitated to curb them by hoisting false charges and the personnel department considered this as a pnmary function The Second Party influenced the company doctof to give unfit certificate to Shu Smjakaroth Chante on 13-6-1989 for a period of one month ttom 5-6-1989 to 4-7-1989, though worked upto 20-6-19i>9 Woikman, Shri Venkatiaya took the cause of Sri Suiyakanlh and that made the second party to influence the doctoi to gci a fitness certificate on 20-6-1989 and the salaiy for 7 days were paid to Sn Suiyakanth due to the ettorts of Shu Venkatraya

6. It is mainly contended by the union that the management was unsuccessftl in picenting Shri Venkatraya to perform, his trade union duties and further was made to lenstate- Shn Ve.ikatiaya in October 1984 by withdrawing the order of disnii'-sal passed against him though the second party undertook belore the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore tnat Shri Venkatraya will be reinstated with all the consequential benefits in CR No 5J1983 it did not keep up the undertakings and the fiist party raised an Industnal Dispute in this con- nection Further Shri Venkatraya continue to assist the employees who weie in difficulties and who were being haiassed by the second party.

7 Enquny was conducted by the in movement and the enquujy is not and fair proper 1 he action of thte manage- ment in reducing the pay to the minimum of the scale in respect of 3 workmen is not conect The union has plavcd to pass award in its favoui

8. The case of the Second Pauy in bnef is as follows :

9 All t'ie allegations made by the union in the Claim Statement against the management aie not conect ShiI Surya- thte Industual Disputes Act. 1947 has referred tthisd ispnte kanth Chante developed nenous pioblems and he was advised by the Company's doctor to take rest Shu Venkara- raya was reinstated on 26-10-1984 based on the joint memo of compromise filed befoie the Industnal Tribunal, Ban- galoie Its consequential benefits are stated in CR No 5|8*.

10 It is the fuithei case of the management that on 28-7-1989 Shri S Venkataraya, SI No 238?, Technician, Gr 1, Poit Facilities Depirtment who was in General Shilt approached Shri M N Miirthy, Assistant Superintendent around 9 30 a m and informed him that he and his colleagues won Id be stopping the plant with a view of dm utpting pioduction and ship loading activities from 1 P.M on 28-7-1989 against the recognised union When Shri" Mmthv, Assistant Supenntendent questioned him the reason for the pioposed stoppage of (he plant, Shri Venkatnravi did not give him any specific leason and said that Shri Murthy would come to know about it in course of time.

11 On 28-7-1989 around i P M. the CB 81 and Mim sluny pump No PS 121 stopped and consequently all pro- duction activities in tne plant came standstill It was only tilt, instruction from Shri S Venkataraya to disrupt ihe pro- duction Ihe plant was stopped due to the stoppage ol PS 121 and CB rfl by Shri Kubera Shetty and Shri Suryakmth Cnante intentionally at the instance ol Shri S Venkatau The workmen have contravened the standing o.ders 12 tnquny was conducted and iho same in tan and pie-pe Management toi these ieasons and for some Oiher reasons has piayed io reject the reference

13 MW1 was examined S Venkataiaya got examined himself S K Kubei Shetty was also examined

14 It is seen Horn the rceoids that this Tribunal by i the management and *he finding ot the Enquny Officer is perverse The managemi.ni has faded to establish that the woikmen ol the union have intentionally stopped the plant The finding given by the Enquiry Officer is not based on the available cleat evid^n^e The allegations made by the management are not true Or course Domestic Enquiry is held as lair and piopei but on perusm? the enquny proceedings and the finding of the en- quny olfieer I am of the opinion that the finding is peiverse end t'le same is not couect 1 have carefully considered the written aiguments filed by the learned counsel appealing fot the management

16 1 have carefully read the decision 1998 LLR 190 cf Madias High Couit fhe facts of the above case ate quite different from the facts of the case on hand From the mate- lial before us it is clear thai here is victimisation and un fan laboui practice with the workmen of first paity unnn The misconduct is not properly proved

17 Considenng all this I am of the opinion that the action of the management is not corect and accordingly I proceei' to pass the following order :

ORDER

Hit- rettien^e is allowed The order ot reducing the pav to the minimum of the scale in ie"pect of S Shri S Venkat- raya, Survakanth Chante and S R Kubera Setty is not correct and the same is set aside Accordingly the refeience is d sp^sed off with the duection to the manacement not to reduce tht scale ot pav of the fhot party union workmen (Dictated to PA, transenb^d by her collected and signed oy me on 9th Octobei, 2O'!l )

V N KULKARNI P r i d i ng Office \ev\ Delhi, ihe 29th Octobu, 2001

SO ; i 9 9- !n pursuance of S al on 17 of the Industn Disputes Act, 1947 (14 o* 1947> the Centnl Governme'f heieby publishes the nwaid of the Cent] a] Goveinment In- dusfnil Tiibmil, Tab dpi r s shown in the Annexuic in tha Indu>,ti al Dispuic between the emplojeis in relation to the

6869 nviwemcnl "f Vnlajkivnd Copper Pioject and their woik- man which was teeeived by the Central Government on 17-10-2001

[No L-12012 95|86D 111 (B)l

B M DAVID, Under Seey

\NNEXURE

BEi ORL I He U MR u. GOVER1NME ^T INDUSTRIAL iRIBUNAL-eUM-LABOUR COUR1 JABALPUR CASE NO CGFT|LC|RH60|87

Piesidmg Officei Shu K M Rai The President, H IP Employees Union, PO Malajkhand,

Distt Balaghat IMP) Applicant

Veisns

The Dy General Managei, MJajkhmd Copper Pioject, PO Malaikhand, OKt Balaina (MP) Non Appl cant

AWARD Passed on tnis 5th day of October, 2001 1 11K Government of India, Ministry of Laboui vide order INO L-12U2|95 86-D III(B) dated 21-8-1987 has refei- led the follow ,nq dispute foi adjudication by this Tribunal — \\ liethei tnc act on of the managemnet of Malakhand Copper Pioject of HCL Ltd Malajkhand in impos- ing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on Shri RC Biswas Heavy Vehicle Driver is justified? If not, what relief is the woikman entitled to?"

2 ILe case foi the woikman is that he is the Geneial S.cictaty oi NC f Employees Union (C11U) in Malajkhand Copper Pioject Being the office bearer of the Union, he is ^ctivelj involved in the Trade Union activities and putting gnevance, ot die workei-> of the project to the management Becaus, of his activities the management was annoyed with him On 26-9 i9S4, he was issued with a false chargesheet iej.ardmg leading a demonsti at.on of about 80 woikers at about I P M after the close of his duty and proceeding tcaard township througn enclosuie of tne admmiotiauve build ng When the demonstration leached the water treat- ment plant at ibout 4 15 P M , the workman slopped the ambulance f om pioceedmg further causing inconvenience to the patient Vipatlal who was in the ambulance He denied Uit chaises levelled against nim by his explanation dated J-S-19S4 The management did not accept his reply and jccided to hold the DF against h in The chaiges levelled aguinsl him weie vague and theiefore no proper leply could be submitted The charges did not constitute the mis- condu. • vithm the meaning Of standing ordeis applicable to the company and holding my demonsttation after offiee homs is coveied updei tne tiade Union activities The Fnquny Offictr conducted the eaquuy in utler disregaid ol the pnneipL of natuial justice The Enquiry Officer acted as a piosectiioi and therefore the Enquny was not conducted in a fan ind impaitutl manner The charges were not prov ed from the evidence on rtcoid available during the Enquny Pioetcdn^s 111,, Inquiry Ofhcei has wiongly held the charges p>owd ,i unM him Hs leoort is preveise and based no subsiancc The eop^ of ihe Enquny Repoit was noi supplied to him The Disciplinary Authoi ity mechanically accepted the repoit without applying his mind The impo sition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect deseives to be quashed He is entitled to all the monetiry ar"j other consequential benefits 3 Ihe ca>-e foi the management is that on 24-5-1984, the workman Ic id the demonsti ition of workers in the rietniscs oi the cv.mp.iny and durina the demonstration, he misbel¹ ived with other employees It was a serious mis conduct under 6870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II—Src. 3ui)] Iht. woikman was given cppotmruly to defend his ease dunrig Hi enqiiiiy pioceedings He participated in the enquuy proceedings , J the evidence w.i-, recoided in his piesence flit Enquiry Officei has nghtlv hold the chaiges proved against him The Discipline)ly Authority, after due consi- ueration "ce~pted the repoi t of the enquiry officer and mi posed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cinvi- lnlive effect on the woikman The order passed by the m m.igement is pen" ctly iega] and do^s not requie r < irueifeience

4 TK following i sues have beep fiamtd m 'his case and

my findings thereon Tie noted hereinafter —.

1 Whethei tin dornwStiejdepirtmental enquuy is propji

and legal'

2 Wheihei iht punishment awaided is proper and legal'

3 Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence

New Delhi the 30th October, 2001 befoie this Tribunal⁹

4 V\ hetnei the termination|aetion taken against liie

woikmaa is justified on the facts of the ease

s Relief and costs'

5 Issues No J and 3

SO 320J—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government In- dusti al Tnbunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur (Rajasthan) as hotvn in the Annexuie, in the Industrial Dispute between the employ MS m ielation to the management of An ports Au- thonty of India, and their workmen, which was received by lh>. Central Government on 30-10-2001

[No L-11012|12|2000|IR(M)1

B M DAVID, Under Seey It hob alicady been held bj th.s Tubunal on 13 3-92 t m' thw Departmental Fnquiiy conduced against the woikman is piopei and legal and therefore the management is noi required to lead any fuithei evidence to prove the misconduct of tne woikman In view of this finding, both these issues nted no fuithei consideration at all

6 Issues No 2 and 4

Dm ing the eouise of DE tne m inagement had examined the Poiice Head Coi^'able \lohd Yakub who was deputed by the Mat on Hou^e Officei of Police Station, Malajkhand to mun'am 'aw and order dunng the procession of the workeis He had c'eaily stated before the Enuny Officer thai as pet 'iistiuction of Station House Officer of Police Vilion Mdlajkhand, he went to time office on 24-5-! 984 and •-aw he p oce^ion bung taken out thcrefiom He ac- companied the process on upto the watei treatment plant of the Pioject The piocessson stopped ne" the ciossing of the road leading to village Pauni The procession was p-aceiul and no one indulged m any soit of illegal actmtiei The pioce"<.ion disbu sed ai about 5 PM He has also clearly st ite I that no bod} rai"ed any slogan itrainst the admmis- tialon of the protect It has also been fuithei stated bv him th it no ont hud stopped the ambulance at the said spot lie cleaied iht eiowd on the road and the ambulance was moved without any obstiuction After the procession was o\er, he went to the nohce station

7 Ihe atoiesaid statement of Head Constable Mohd Yakub cli ally ^oes to show that the woikman had not indulged in any illegal activities at the time of the procession taken out by the \ o r k^ of the M. Iajkiiand Pioject after \ P 1*' He had not Mised any slog, ns icimst any officer of the piojeet In view of thi^ cleai evidence of Mohd Yakub the charges levelled aga'nst him cannot be held to be pioved The workman nevei indulaed himself in anv illegal activities while taking out the piocession on the relevant day In this \\a\ lite pun shmenf awirded by the management by v as of stopping his one inciement with cumulative effect is bad in 1 iw This punishment cannat be upheld by this tribunal T^ues No 2 and 4 ue ansvveied accordingly

8 [s.ue No 5

In \ w of m> findings gi\en on I suts No 2 and 4 it is

held that the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the workman Shri R" Biswas is illegil and it is theiefore set aside The action taken by the management in th". connection is unjust and impropci Th<> woikmin s entitled to the increment with held bv th" iniustinpnt TI,1S icfpience 's accordmglv answeied

9 Co|i\ if the aw uJ be senj 'o ' ft inment of Ihdn

MiniMry of 1 lbour is pei mli s

k M RAI, Piesiding OITieei w "Whether the aciiop of the management of Aiiports Authority of India, Jaipur in terminating t;ie sevens of Sh. Girssh Tot- l<"ni S\c Sh. L. D. Totltmi was justified? If not, to whai relief the workm-m is ent'il- ed and from what date "'6SV THE GAZETTE OK INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ \CiR\TIAYANA 3, 1923 [PAPT TI—^EC. 3(T>] New Delhi, the 30th October. 2001 S.O. 3201.—Li pu.-

[No. Z-13012,2 2001-lR(M)l B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2'48 of 2001 Frnplover, m Reia'icn In the Management of Hindustan Perokum Corporation Ltd. The Chiarman & Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Petroleum House, 6th Floor, No. 17, Jarnshedji Tata Road, C'-uiixhgJe, VUmlvi'-400 020.

AND

Their Workmen Petroleum Employees Union, Tel. Rasayan Bhavan, Tilak Road, Dadar, Mumbai-400 014.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Mr. B. D. Birajdar. Advocate. For the Workmen : Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advo- cate.

Mumbai, dated 14th September, 2001 AWARD-PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. Z-13012|2'2001-IR(M), dated r;-3-2001 and franker oic'u dated 19-4-2001, have referred the following industrial dispute to this tri- bunal for adjudication, in exercise of the powers con- ffrrei by clause (d) of the sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. *

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. Mumbai in terminating the services c'" Shri D. N. Vidhate, Employee No. 8023^c> Senior Boiler Technician, Poiler Housc- FR. Mumbai Rcf.nerv, w.e.f. 19-1-2001 -i legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman Shii D, N. Vidhate is entitled to?"

2. The workman Shri D. N. Vidhate. was emplo- yed as Assistant Boiler I cchnician on 27th July. 1987 in the refinery of Hindustan Petroleum Cor- poration Ltd., Mumbai. He was elected General Secretary ot the Employees Union in 1991. He was promoted as Senior Boilei Technician in the year 1995. It is contended workman put unblemished service irom 1987 till the date of his dismissal i.e. 19-1-2001. Workman pleaded that since he fought for the cause of the employees he was very much popular among the employees and therefore the management had animus to victimise him, and conse- quently attempted so in the year 1993 & 1997 by suspending him. He contended that because of the union activities he had to attend meetings, conferen- ces and discussions at the Government offices including the Labour Commissioner (C) and the Labour Court. Industrial Tribunal and courts. There- fore at times he was attending the office late. He had severe asthama and therefore he had to take leave. However, he did so without affecting the regular work. He avened that management in order to victimise him chargesheeted him on 12th August, 1998 on three counts :

1. For remaining absent for about 95 days dur- ing the p?rifd f'-om January 1998 to July 1998 without prior approval'intimation of his superiors, of which about 45 days were on loss of pay, after availing of entire leave to his credit.

2. For coming late for duty frequently on a number of occasions, by 2 to 3 hours and for leaving the work place earlv, particu- larly during the Day shifts without prior approvals of his Supervisor.

3. For not performing his routine jobs while on duty, on his own but performing a few jobs only on the instructions of his Super- visor causing difficulties for the depart- ment in main+aining shift schedules, as the unit is operating on the basis of man to man relieving system and adversely affect- ing the work schedules and production of the Department.

and that Disciplinary Authority appointed Manager fFinance) Shri Fakesh Mahajan as inquiry officer and Shri R. B. Mehta. Manager (Boiler House) as Present- ing Officer. It is contended that he was chargesheeted a<; above under the Standing Orders which were not applicable to him as Model Standing Orders (Cen- tral) prescribed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 were only applicable to him and that the charges which were for the pe- riod January 1998 to July 1998, were not specific and the same we~c vague nnd general in nature, therefore by his letter dated Rih September. 1998 and 10ih October, 1Q98 he requested the inampement tr provide details and pirt;cu1nrs but management did not fur- nish it, therefore, he could not submit his explana- tion to the chorgeshe^t. It is contended that he had 6873

:onsidciing grave misconduct he has been dismissed. It is contended 'hat the inquiry officer.on recording correct pioceedings on proper conclusions, recorded findings as per record and therefore the inquiry being fair and proper and finding being as per re- cord, workman has been rightly dismissed and consequently his claim does not stand to reason.

> 4. On the basis of pleadings two preliminary issues were framed at Exhibit-21. Workman, Shri Vidhate, filed his affidavit (Exhibit-25) and was cross-examined by the management and later on he closed his evidence vide purshis (Exhibit-33) Management did not lead oral evidence for the rea- sons mentioned in the purshis (Exhibit-34).

5. Heard the Learned Counsel for both t-he par- ties, at length Perused the written submissions of workman (Exhibit-35) alongwith zerox copies of :he rulings. On hearing the Learned Counsels and perusing the record as a whole, and the Written Submissions as above, I record my findings on the Eollowing preliminary issues, for the reasons men- tioned below :

Issues

Findings

1. Whether the domestic inquiry No

conducted against the workman was as per the Principles of Natural Justice ?

2. Whether the findings of the inquiry Yes.

officer aie perverse ?

REASONS

asked leave record, however it was found manipula- ted with a view to victimise him which he had brought to the notice of Inquiry Officer. It is fur- ther contended that lnquiiy ollicer conducted the inquiry under the influence of the Presenting Officer, who was totally bias to him. He used to instigate employees against him, which he had apprised to the Inquiry Officer Mr. Mahajan by the letter dated 9th July, 1999, however, he did not take that letter on record. It is contended inquiry officer did not re- cord the proceedings correctly and accurately, nor the inquiry held as per procedure. He was not given copies of the documents nor the inspection of the documents relied upon by the-management, though requested (o the inquiry officer. For all these rea- sons he contended that inquiry was in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and no sufficient oppor- tunity was given to him. It is iurthej- contended that the inquiry officer in, his inquiry report held him guilty for late attendance for more than four occa- sions in a calendar month, habitual absence without permission, though, record shows that he was not so absent which find place in thd letter of Chief Gene- ral Manager dated 19-1-2001- thereby the findings recorded against the record, and are bias, It is contended by workman that, on the report of the in- quiry officer dated 25-10-99, disciplinary authority* dismissed him illegally on 19-1-2001, which is against the provisions of labour practice, as the dismissal ordgr came to be passed 14 months after receipt of the inquiry report It is therefore contended that the/ inquiry is not fair and findings are perverse, and that action taken by the management on his dismissal is llegal and therefore he be reinstated in service with ull back wages.

6. Admittedly workman Shri Vidh>e was |.vorking as Senior Boiler Technicati in [Mumbai Refinery, and that on inquiry h? was dismissed from the service w.e.f. 19-1-2001. According to workman inairry [held against him was improper, asa'ns* the Principles of Natural Justice and thit fWhms recorded bv the incmiry officer are nerv"ts\ [So far domestic inquiry is concerned. Their

jl o r d s h i p ". of S u p r e me C o u rt in S ur E - " • " T I PI

|.trd Stamping Works Ltd. Vs. TVir Wrtrk- jr.en 1°63 It LLJ p, 367 pointed out t^af the [inquiry cannot be said to have been nrorvrl/ 5 held Unless :—-

(i) the empJoyee proceeded a ^ ' n^ has been informed clearly of t^e cb^^^c? 'evelled against him;

fii) the witnesses are exatTiit>p'i-orr¹owe in respect of the charges;

(\i\) the empiovee is <*iven a f"'r onnir-

tunity to cross-examine wi^ne ses;

(h ) he is given a fair onnorhmrv t~>

examine witnesses including hlrrxoif 3. Management, H.P.C.L., resisted the claim of workman by filing -Written Statement (Exhibit-17). Management denied that workman was victimised on my of the grounds and that he has been illegally erminated. It is their- contention that he was dis- nissed from service for proyed acts of major nisconduct, as, a boiler technician attendance of vorkman on duty should be regular and punctual vhen the boiler is in operation and the attendance of >oiler competency is a must. However, the work- nan was most irregular and non-punctual in his du-, ies, remained unauthorisedly absent and that his* rratic attendance used to get innumerable probkms; n running the sensitive section of boiler, and that hcj eing a union leader to find a substitute for him with-' ut notice was a difficult task. It is contended that! articulars of the accusations were clearly mentioned! l the chargesheet, he was given full opportunity to efend himself and he was given all copies of the ocuments relied by the management. He was iven copies of the report. The inquiry was con-i ucted for more than three months spreading nine! ttings giving the workman opportunity to cross-j ramine the management witnesses and that the in- uiry was fair and proper observing the Principle* [ Natural Justice. It is contended that workman as least*interested in the-performance of the "duties",! ive. and except oarry on his trade union activities a* le cost of his responsibilities. It is contended thn* te inquiry was conducted in accordance with the ertified Standing Orders applicable to him, and

m GI/2QQ1—36874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA X 1923 {PART H - S E C. 3(ii)I in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter; and

(v) the enquiry officer records his find-

ings with reasons for the same in his report.

constituted infirmity and therefore it certainly vitiates. He has relied on Associated Cement Cos." Vs. Their Workmen 1963 II hU pg. 3ci6. In the above said ruling Thei^ Lord- ships luled that it is not fair in domestic in- quiry against industrial employees that at the veiy commencement t>f the inquiry employees should be closely cross-examined even be- fore any other⁴ evidence is lead against him. True it is in domestic inquiry the evidence has to be considered from the point of view of prepounderance of probabilities and not like the benefit of doubt as has happened in cri- minal trial. Mr. Mehta being a Presenting Officer has to represent on behalf of the management, where question of his examina- tion as witness does not and cannot arise. It was his duty to take Examination-in-Chief of the vitnessess for the management and to cross examine the delinquent workman and his witness it was not his job to depose as wit- ness on behalf of the management. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for management Mr. Birajdar submits that rules of evidence Act do not apply to the departmental enquiries, and that it is the duty of the inquiry officer to elecit truth from witnesses, and for this, he is even entitled to cross-examine the wit- nesses for the same and this will not bring any bias. In a domestic inquiry a detailed procedure of recording evidence as followed in courts, need not be strictly adhered to for which he has relied on Sukhadeo Vishwanath Garaje Vs. M|s. Food Corporation of India and Ors. 1988 I LLJ pg. 277. Looking to the inauiry proceedings minutely, hardly can be said that it was without infirmitvldefecfs. The f'i^ts of the case cited by Mr. Rinidar T~id the facts of *he case on hand, ar° diffo- T-Ant Hffp th** entire nrocpdur? '<; full of m^rmjfjpc P n cj ^ 31 tfcg decision rpiip.-i wa^

COnC^rnitia trt thr- 1,=>T! he

TI i" o <">m pnt.

6375

that he did not complain in writing on recording por- iion 'A' on pg. 67 (Exhibit-22) which clearly men- tions that Cie had apprised the inquiry officer, that lu ujes not require any defence counsel, therefor; hardly now lie in the mouth of workman tha' on this count inquiry vitiates.

11. On going through the d'scu-jsion suprn it i& breath pointed out that he was not aware on the procedure. What is to be seen whether by adopting the procedure of inquiry pre- judice has been caused to workman. The fac. that procedure of inquiry referred to above, was absolutely irregular and improper there- by to my view it can safely be said that, that Caused prejudice to workman, as principles of Natural Justice were not followed.

clear that the procedure of inquiry conduced against the workman by the inquiry officer was totally errone- ous, which prejudiced the workman a,id the findings recorded by the inquiry officer in so far as Hie ma e- riad charge on leave is concerned, is against the record and therefore the finding to that effect is perverse wffiich vitiates the inqu:ry as a whole. Issues pro answered accordingly. Thcrefeote the following order is passed :

ORDER

The domestic inquiry conduced agamn f'*e work- man was not as per the Principles of Natural Justice and findings of the inqu;ry officer are perverse.

8. Apart from this, so far the inquiry officer and the Presenting Officer are concerned they are said to be subordinate to the Disci- plinary authority. Therefore Mr. Mahajan cannot said to be independent inquiry officer, when according to workman, inspite of giving application dtd. 9th July, 1999, pg. 53 (ExhibiM4) it was not taken on record by inquiry officer, which speaks against Presenting Officer, Mr. Mehta.

The management to lead evidence to justify its

action.

Mumbai

Dated : 14th Susptemher, 2001.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presid'ng Officer

New Delhi, the 30th October, 200!

9. Inquiry Officer, Mr. Mahajan prepared inquiry report on 25-10-99, pg. 86—106 (Exhibit-14). By this report he concluded that out of three charges i.e. habitual or gross negligence, late attendance of more than four occasions in a month, habitual ab- sence without permission, two charges have been proved except the habitual absence without per- mission. The Chief Engineer, Disciplinary Autho- rity in his report dated 19-1-2001 (pg. 1 to 11) (Exhibit-22) on pg, 4 pointed out that, the inquiry officer erred in counting absence on loss of pay seven days instead of 5 days foi the month of June, 1998 and that he did not take into account four interven- ing off days, in the month of May, 1998, 5 interven- ing off day, in the month of June, 1998 and four intervening off days in tht month of July, 1998 totalling 13 intervening off days in so iar as absence on loss of pay and further found that the inquiry officer did not take into account absence of 29 days on loss of pay under sick leave on full pay category and ab.ence of 8.35 days on loss of pay in casual liave category. ITiis clearly shows that inquiry officer concluded without considering the record. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant urg- ed that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer ffrc against the record arid hence perverse. Infact, when inquiry procedure was not correctly adopted which occasion prejudice to the workman resulting in vitiating the inquiry itself, there is no need to consider on the p'Jint of perversity of findings as held by His Lordship of Bombay High Court in CST, Mumbai Vs. Rajan Kumar Mohalik 2000 III CLR 117.

S.O. 3202.—In pursuance of S~ct;on 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pirn lishes the Award of the Central OoVt. Tiouv Tribnnal-cum-Labour Court, , Bhubaneswar (Orissa) as shown in the Ahn°xure hi the Industrial dispute between ihe ^mpl wer< in rela'ion to the National, Alumrmim Co. Ltd. anil- their workmen winch wt" ^he Central Governtfifent'o'n J-9-10-2001.

[No. L-29011l41|W|IRnvn

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

10. THe Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant submits that chargesheet was vague and that workman was not given opportunity a give repy- to that and that mate- rial documents were not provided to him, thereby pre- judice has been caused to h;m. I fin^ no substance in this submission because the workman himself in cross-ebcamma^ion para 30 pointed out that he had given detailed reply to the chargesheet vide pp. 90, 9 1, 92 on receiving the attendance record. So far tb" engaging Defence Counsel, workman admits⁶876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)] ANNEXURE ' •

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT. BIIUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

6877 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUB COURT, JABALPtTR, M.P.

Case No. CGIT|LC(R)(86)|99

>

the management #f i#$P .^nd the workman. He was emj^aye* fjf ,Shfamik Sahakari Samu^ Ltd. lie hjad 4$$ ^en^edy ^p chaUcftge the order of dismjt^a^ fn^ni semees under the Provjsipns' of |{M. P; C^pRef:atiye Socie- ties Act and not under tfie Provisipns of J. P. Act 1947 as laid dpwn by tne §uprepie ^ourt in R. C. Tiwari ^ s. $. p, J|ijya- Sahikarj Mktg. Federation LW.," (1997) 5, SCC, page 125.

Shri Paltan S|o. Ram Prasad C;o. Sahadev &hu, fabler Set, At & PO Dalli-Rfljhara, Dut'g.

• • Workman.

Vs.

1. The President, Shramik Sahajkari S&miti Ltd., PO : Oalli-Rajjh^. Durg. Management.

4. In view of the^ facts st^te^ aboyc it is held that th^s reference 15 pot n^a,intainable before this Tribunal. The workman is not tntifted tp any relief under the Provisions of I. p. Apt, 1947. Reference i$ answered accordingly.

2. The -Mines Manager, Palli Hines, Q{

BSP, PO : Dafii-Rajhara,

AWARD

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Govern- ment of India, Ministry o| Labour, New Delhi, for publication as ger ri}le.

(Parsed on this 25th Day of .September, 2001)

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer 1. The Government, of India, Ministry of Labour, vkfe'order No. ^29^121 J37198IIR (M), dtr 5-2-i999, has referred this dispute for ad]tfdicatf6n as under :—

"Whether the actfbh &i the management of Shra^nik SaKakAri Samitl Ud.t' a contractor of BSP 'at'D#Ili - Mines', in terminating, thjg, seivipe of Shri Paltan w.e.f, 0^-05-1997 is iustifi- ed ? If riot, to what relief he is en- titled ?"

2. The management hto objected th.e.,m#}n

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2001¹ tenaftce of this reference before this Tribunal, Their contention is that the workman was employed by Shramik SahakaVi Samiti L,td., Dalli-Rajhara. His services w£te terminated w.e.f. 8-54997. He ehalleiiged his oxder of, termrnalidn before rife Asstt. Registrar, Co- operative Societies. Di^rg, un^er the Provisions of M. P. Co-opera^ye Spcieties Act. The Provisions of I. D. Act shall not apply in the present case. The woYfcrii'aji had the remedy undor the. Provisions of'M, P. Co-qperafivq Societies Act 6nly arid not under the Provi- sions of I. D. Act 1947.

B. M, DAVI0, iwdw Sfecy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INUSTRTAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOTJR COURT, JABALPUR, M.P.

Case No. CGIT|LC(R)(87)|99

between the management of BSP and the workman. He was the employee of Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd. He had the remedy to challenge the order of dismissal from services under the Provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act and not under the Provisions of I. D. Act, 1947 as laid down by the Supreme Court in R. C. Tiwari Vs. M. P. Rajya Sahakari Mktg. Federation Ltd., (1997) 5. SCC, page 125.

Shri Pusau Sjo.- Chatri, Cio. Shri Sahadev Sahu, Tabler, Set, At & PO Dalli-Rajhara, Durg.

• • Workman.

Vs.

1. The President, Shramik Sahakari

Samiti Ltd., PO : Dalli-Rajhara,

4. In view of the facts stated above, it is held that this reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The workman is not entitled to any relief under the Provisions of I. D. Act, 1947. Reference is answered accordingly.

Durg. • • Management.

2. The Mines Manager, Dalli Mines of

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Govern- ment of India Ministry of ^Labour, New Delhi, for publication as per rule.

BSP. PO : Dalli-Rajhara, Drug.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer AWARD

(Passed on this 25th Day of September, 2001)

1 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-29O12|139'9S|1R (.M), dt. 5-2-1999, has referred this dispute for adjudication asunder :—

"Whether the action of the management of Shramik Sahakari Samiti Ltd., a contractor of BSP at Dalli Mine in terminating the service of Shri Pusau w.e.f. 8-5-1997 is justified ? If not. to what relief he is entitled ?"

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3205.—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, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the emp- loyers m relation to the Mumbai Port Trust and then- workmen which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 30-10-2001.

[No. L-310ll/22/2000-TR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

PRESENT •:

2. The management has objected the main- tenance of this reference before this Tri- bunal. Their contention is that the work- man was employed by Shramik Sahnknri Samiti Ltd.- Dalli-Rajhara. His services were terminated w.e.f. 8-5-1997. He challenged his order of termination before the Asstt. Re- gistrar- Co-operative Societies, Drug, under the Provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societ'es Act. The provisions of ID Act shall not apply in the present case. The workman had the remedy under the Provisions of M. P. Co- operative Societies Act only and not under the Provisions of I. D. Act, 1947.

S. N. Saundankar.—Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGTT-2J25 of 2001

Employers in relation to th? . management.of

Mumbai Port Trust.

3. It i*! admitted fact that the workman was never employed hy the Bhilai Steel Plant. H^ was employed by the management of Shranvk Sahakari Samiti Ltd., a contractor of BSP at Dalli-Ratfiara Mines. In this way, there was no relationship of Master /tnd Servant

The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai 400 038.

6879

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 AND

Their Workmen.

Sh Ram Premchand Makhija, B. NOI. B|46, R. No. 271, Harijan Pada, Ulhasnagar No. 5, Distt. Thane Mumbai 400 038.

APPEARANCES :

S.O. 3206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1'4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central GoveiiHttent Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the M|s. Natwar Parikh Ind. Ltd., and their workmen which was received by the Central Government op the 30-10-2001.

For the Employer.—Mr. Umesh Nabar Advo- cate.

For the Workmen.—No Appearance.

[No. L-31012/2/200MR(M)J B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

Mumbai, Dated 11th October, 2001

ANNEXURE

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar.—Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2[58 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-31011|22|2000|IR(M), dated 2-2-2001, 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 the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

M|s. Natwar Parikh Ind. Ltd.

Mis. Natwar Parikh Ind. Ltd., Natwar Parikh House, 107|109, P.D. Mello Road, Mumbai-9.

AND

"Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai in termina- ting the services of Shri Ram Premchand Makhija, 'A' category Mazdoor, by way of removal from service w.e.f. l'5-ll-96 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Their Workmen. Sh. Shriram Maurya, 15[2, Mahavir Nagar, Khade Golawadi, Vithalwadi, Kalyan (E), Thane.

APPEARANCES

For the Employer.—Mr. V. P. Vaidya Advo- cate.

For the Workmen.—In Person.

Mumbai, Dated 10th October, 2001

AWARD

2. Pursuant to the notice workman's advocate ap- peared vide (E\hibit-5) on 20-3-2001 and Advocate Shri Umesh Nabar for the management, Mumbai Port Trust, vide (E.xhibit-6) on 19-4-2001. Conse- quently matter was fixed for filing of Statement of Claim bv workman on 19-4-2001. However, that day workman remained absent, nor filed his claim, hence the matter was fixed on 15-5-2001. However workman did not appear nor filed his Statement of Claim that day nor on subsequent dates i.e. I4-6-2U01, 19-7-2001 and 2?-8-2001. Today also workman and his advocate absent nor filed State- ment of Claim which shows workmen is not interest- ed in prosecuting the reference. Hence the follow- ing order is passed ;—

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

The Government of India Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-31012[2|2OOl|IR(M), dated 14-5-2001. in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec

"Whether the action of the management of M|s. Natwar Parikh Ind. Ltd., in not re- instating Mr. Sriram Maurya, in employ- ment with effect from 24-9-94 with all consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not. what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. Pursuant to the notices, the workman Mr. Shri- ram R. Maurva and on behalf of the management Mi-. Nntvai Parikh Jmhmries Ltd Advocate Mr Y"*J?P V a i dya appeared before the tribunal on 5-1O-2001, and alongwith purshis (Exhibit-9) they filed Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th May 2001. Since the workman settled the dispute with"GMfr THE GAZETTE OF JNt>tA : NOV. 24. 20&1/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PAfcT Tl -S"e. 3(H)] tho management does not want td ptociid with the reference, therefore the-foilQjvin^ Q&ct}i$"P&s$W:-

ORDEft

Reference stan&ulJSp01&f Vide' Memorandum of 'Settten"ent, Tfda&Hioth May, 2001V etf- cknefl toittot;piirshft' p d M H ^T

S_ N. SAUl^?i4Ai>rpWiditt"i>ffl#cr

DtFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRlBONAL NO. 2

AT MUMBAI

Reference No. CpJT-2/58 of 2001

Natwar Parikh Industries'Ltd.,

AND

6181

Witnesses :

1. Shri Hemanshu N. Mumbai wall.

2 Cui< Robin. S Powale.

(Sd.|)

(Ch Sivaiamakrishna)

Conciliation Officer and V' £'Gin] I O'bour Commissioner (Ce itral) Mumbai No CiJ'm Receipt

1 Shi 11 am R \jhuiya dr hereby state and dec- 1 -j 1 K >th dr^wn on Bombay Mercantile Co- op Brn!v L'd , for Rs 13,770 and Rs 61,210 res- pectively totalling to Rs. 75,000 ui Full and Final rettlement of tll my teimn?l legal dues in Natvar P T VH IndiiVrv- UC , the bieak-up of which is as b4ow :

'• ,

Rs 1,398.00 Rs 1,006 00 Rs. 13,770.00 Rs. 13,667 00 Notice Rs. 2,927.00 Rs. 42,232.00 Bonus Leave T n v e' A^-i-t-jpcc Gratu'ty Pe lenchmenf Cumne'-saton One Month S^lrrv 11 lieu of fcx-Gr.iti 1 payment

Rs 75,000 00 To'-'

Deduct oils

N J .l

Nil Rs. 75,000 00 CRuc "os Seventy Five Thousand only)

New Delhi, the li,t October, 2001 S.O. 3207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the In- dustrial Tribunal, Ahmtuabad as shown in the Annexuie in the fnd'istrMl Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and then v orkraan, which was received bv the Central Government on 31-10-2001.

[No L-120121223 |98-IR(B-D]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNFXTJRE

BEFORE SMT N r SHELAT, INLUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL) AHMEDABAD Reference (IT( ) No 31 of 1999 ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

The State Bank of India, Ahmedabad.

Versus

The workmen -moloytd undei it

In the matter of fstinlration of Shii Hemant J. P'arekh, w ef 16-05 07.

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. K. Oza. Learned Advocate, for the first party

Shri Iqbal A. Patal, Learned Representative for the second party.

AWARD

2. The second pany workmen has filed his state- ment of claim Ex. 4 stating that he has initially joined the bank on 08-03-88 u kcitd Blanch and worked a^ sweepei wataman Kom 8-3-1988 to 9-3-1988 for 2 days. Again in the mouth of Aptil lor 2 clays and against Iiom 13-O.V88 to 15 06-fc'S IOL 34 Ua>s a|s a water sprinkler, that thus he has worked totally for 38 days, as per certificate dated 15-06-88 issued b_, Kaua Bmnch Maiu^u.

necessary certificate shoving that he ha? worked for 186 days fioni 08-03-1988 to 14-06-1991, so that he may be provided .in opportunity to serve the first party bank. The second party workman has further submitted that the Zonal Office ol the In it party bank vide its letter dated 27 9-94 informed him in response to his letter dated 19-09-1994 that hj is waitlisted under serial No. 707; that the second party workman once again wrote a letter dated 03-12-1996 to the Zonal Office, Ahmedabad foi knowing the progress of wt';t list. The second party workman has submitted UMI he has also wcrked a-, a peon in the Anand branch of the fiist oaity bank for 267 days from 29-11-1995 to 14-12-199b, tha< the second party v.orknvn has nho worked . s a peon in the first party bank ;n their Vidya Nagar branch on voucher basis from 2^-01-1997'to 24-02-1997 28-02-1997 to 09-04-1997 and 10-01 1997 to 15 05-1997.

The first party bank had published an advertise- ment dated 01-08-1988 inviting applications from persons who have w orked with the first party bank on icii.po"aiy basis a-* rieniai d e e p er or watchman with a view to regularise them in theii bank, that second party workman beiii^ eligible, applied in the first party bank in terms of " the advertisement dated IM-G8-198S. to. his reguuu vt>on in service, that the Kaira Branch of the first parly bank issued a memo- dated 02-05-1989 appoint!'!" "the second party work- man as water sprinkler foi ^ days from 04-05-1989 to 15-06-1989 on a ^alaty of Rv 430 p m. on tem- poral y bisK, th .t th_ Bianch Managei, Kaira issued a certificate stating that the workman has worked for 43 days as water sprinkler, that the Regional Office of the first party bank, Amtmuuli, Ahmedabad issued a call letter of interview dated 31 08-1989 asking the second¹ party workman to remain pi c e nt for inter- view on 19-09-1989 in terms of the above advertise- ment dated 01-08-1988 for the candidates who have put in temporary sirvice 'n the bank, that the second party workman accordingly appeared for interview as directed and waiting for regular appointment in terms of the interview, but in \^in

6883

in that agreement, that as pci that settlement an ad- vertisement was given and applications were invited irom the persons who wtic qualified lor the job, that these temporary, casual, pan-time woikers were intcL- viewed atier the advertisement did hat a waul'Sl was made OUT and *-eccnd puu> \ orkman was at waitlist No 707, that whichever branch lequntd the workeis the workcis WLIC sciic fioiu tb <= waitlist bj the head office tha* thv. sa.d w i fi u v u*. extended from time to time, but ultimately it was sciapped on 01-04-199/ man ojaliy from 16-05-1997 is illegal and bad in law arbitrary and mala fide, opltntative, unfair labour practice and contiary to the puncipies ol justice and constitutional piovisions, (hat the first party bank has not ofleied any opportunity of being heaid to the second party woikman pnoi to his illegal oial teirm- nation, that the first party bank has not given any reason prior to his illegal oral termination of service, that the first party bank has pot conducted any deparf mental enquny prior to his illegal termination, that the first party bank has violated all the principles ot natural justice, that the second party workman is en titled to reinstatement in service with continuity ot service seniority and other lights and advantage and benefits and full back wages horn the date ot illegal termination from 15-05-1997 till iemstatement in ihc first party bank as a peon

The first party bank has denied that the second p^ru workman has completed 240 days in their Anand branch The first party bank has stated that the seeona party workman was working as casual labourer doing cleaning work and that that AOIR was lasting for dboui I to 2 - J /2 his only, and that he was getting Rs 25 as daily wage trom that bianch, that rt is not true thai he has completed 240 days work and therefore he is not entitled to be peimanent workman in that branch that m the same way, the second party workman work- ed in the Vithd I dvog N ij,ar Branch from l*-2-J997 U) 5-2 lu >1 ILI 5 dci\N and htre al o be was working loi 2 to 2-1/2 his as casual S about ei doing cleaning work Thus the second party workman has worked lioin 08-03-1988 to 14-06-1991 on different designa tions as part-lime time scale bauh woiker, waur spunkier and sweepei for 186 days

The fiist party bank has denied that the second puib workman has woiked foi 267 days in their Anand Bianci. and the hist o u '; b rk has also denied that the second party workman has worked from 25-01-1997 to 15-05-1997 in their Vallabh Vidya. Nasai Bitiic¹ h t ^ tlu u'H)>v of the second party vcukrmn was foi bcl nd n the waitinglist, he was not getting woik with the fust party bank, that undei these circumstances the des land of the second pa^v workman lor getting lemstated with the first party with contmu.ty of servce a ad with full back wages is not legal and piopei and lequncs to be rejected 3 The second party workman has pioduced 12 documents vide Ex 5 in suppoit ot his case Ex 5/1 is the xerox copy of certificate issued by bank to the workman dated 16-05-1988 Ex 5/2 is the xeiox cop> of advertisement inviting application given by bank dated 01-08-1988 Ex 5/3 is the xeiox copy of memo issued by the bank to the workman dated 02-05-1989 Ex 5/4 is the xerox copy of interview call letter of the bank dated ^1-08-1989 Ex 5|5 is the xe.ox copy of ccitificatc issued 1' tht bank to the work- man dl 6 9 1990 '_x 5 6 is the xerox cop} of the certificate issued b\ tl e bank to the workman dt 6 1! 992 I x 5 7 is t i xerox copy of the letter written by the bank to the workman dated 22-04-1992 Ex 5/8 is the xeiox copy of certificate issued by bank to the workman dated 19-05-1992 Ex 5/9 is the xerox copy of letter written by the workman to the bank dated 19-09-1994 Ex 5/10 is the xeiox copy of letter written by the bank to the workman dated 27-09-1994 Ex 5/11 is the xeiox copy of letter wntten by the workman to the ban\ dated 16-06-1997 Ex 5/12 is the xerox copy of lettei written by bank to the workman dated 28-06-1997

/. It ins been ooserved earlier that some the payment \ D u J k ui indicates >'"vd 1'ic *" uk- mati discliiug^d Vi.iioiio duties, nor vJiv done by the sub stufr. Ex~i to Lx-50 of the payments \ouchtrs are a d m i t s! by the management. On the back ot u'u>c •'•' . ted vouchers signatures cf" Raje^h KM IT ' ve not been disputed. This indicates that vaiiou¹- m<->- cellaneous woiks of the h'mV was done by Rajesh Kumar and he was paid extvn^s from the contingency.

6. The other admitted vouches s are related

2001.

9 Th^ ^ n t e n a 's OK r"cri**ci do not "u?'T'.i1f°f of r H n s t ?vT e nt However, h'a is piitif^f¹ ''f re1ief of continuity ^^ a W'n ^I^P¹ t^ir setvicps '""^r" + rrp'*'|at- cd i e. ^ ^0 vYo 1-arv- 2001 ns fh- n-cd of ^/.Tt^¹" " ' TS rontMnio'is infl work was "yii'^TVIe

! ^ Th;s. in fbe f' cts nnrl nrcnir)"-t'i"ces of

the r^s^ ^"

('pi +Nr> "^r"~! P i i p ' Ji r^rt'n Hp'njiQ ,~ff ' " o1' . ' "g T^d o¹tO r i' f ! "¹-v i ]' c o n t r a ct to aiTPngt watt r b ut Sic n:d ^ it p'"o- clucf arivf cViciniie'it t> sufffest tl"\f R - i ^h Kn'far \\ i" siv^n con'tf^Qt to nrvipq^ ynhv For • uch c ^ 'r^ct. tenders were necessary r * ! ' ':rn th d">^v ra'e^ Ni<- ^l\~rc if no vich dor"'" "HK, Tf S-i Rfi'""h K r i r nr was "nno'n ted tf- v conlractor dierc was no occasion * ">

Mur-i ^r WPS illeg-slly tcrm<"j e.1 6889 w.e.L 5- J 0-99 and was void-ab-intio. Sri Rajesh Kumar, the workman is entitled to continuity as a Water Boy from the date of trrminrii:on till Tune 2001; and

(ii) that the workman is entitled to full wages on the rate admi-'siblc to a daily wager in the bank rovsed from time to time

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

"Whether Ihe action ol management changing the officiating allowance vide their circular dated 5-1-98 contrary to the settlement dated l9-10-6fi para 9.11 in contravention ot Section " ( A) of T. D. Acl, 1947 is justi- fied V If not, what relief union workmen is entitled and from what date ?" New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3210.-—Tn 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 Tribunalrcum-Labour Court. Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Difputc between the employers in rela- tion to the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workman which was received by the Central Government nn 29-10-2001.

I No. L-12011 9!Q9-TRfR-I)l

A FAY KUMAR, Dok Officer

3497 Gf/2001—56S90 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I M D IA : N O V. 2 4, 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 3, ]O23 | P A RI T T — S t c. 3 ( i i )] 2 3-460 '9.11 In supL'isession ul paragraph d.5o of the Desai Award—

(a) Ii' a workman other than suboidhidie stail officiates in a post in a higher cadre lor a pcnod of 10 days or more, he shall be paid an officiating allow- ance lor the period lor which he officiates, on the following basis ;

(i) Where the basic pay o! the permanent incum- bent exceeds the basic pay nl the person officiating, the offic'atm'' allowance shall be 15 per cent of the basic pay of the person officiating or the difference between the two basic pays whichever is less, provided that in no :asc will the officiating allowance be less than 7-1 -'2 pe>- cent of the basic pav of the person officiating ;

(ii) Where the basic pay of the permanent incum- bent is equal to or less than that of the person officiating the officiating allowance shall be 7-1/2 per ceni of the basic pay nf the person C'fficialinL\

(h) If iv member of the subordinate stall officiates in the eidim! cnd>o W 'hall be paid offieinlins al- Iowanc; at the rates ment;

6891 or the difference between his basic pay and starting basic pay of the clerical scale in that area whichever is higher. Such officiating allowance will be payable pro-raita for each day of work in the clerical cadre without any limitation as to the number of cays for which he officiates."

Circular No. 50[f'fcR|4|:iK)7;9S Dated : 5-1-98 GUIDELINES FOR PAYMENT OF OFFICIA- TING ALLOWANCE TO SUB S1AFI< Vide Circular letter No. 448/PER-6;w 96 dated 13th July, 19%, the clarifi- cation for payment of officiating allowance to subordinate staff was issued. We arc lcceiving queries from Regional Offices as to whether the clari- fication as contained in p,ua (iii) of the aforesaid circular is also applicable on, the Sub-staif who are getting higher basic pay than the stalling basic paiy m clerical cadre.

We have again examined the matter on the basis of ihe guidelines received from Indian Bank's Associa- tion and are reproducing the said guidelines, for pay- ment of officiating allowance to sub-stati, as under:

"If a workman ether than subordinate staff offi- ciates in a post in a higher cadre for a con- tinuous period of 7 days or more he shall tie pand an officiating allowance, for the period for which he officiate^, on Ihe following basis:

(i) Where the basic pa\ of the permanent in- cumbent exceeds the basic pay of the person officiating the officiating allowance shall be 1 5 per cent of the basic pay of the person officiating or the difference between the two basic pays, whichever is less, provided that in no case the officia- ting allowance be less than 7.5 per cent of the basic pay of the person ofh"uaitin";

(ii) Wheic the ba-

(iii) If a member ot tfu- subordinate staff offi- ciates in the clerical cadre, he shall be paid officiating allowance at the rates mentioned as above or the difference bet- ween his hasie pay ana the staitm;; basic pay of die clericil scnlc whichever is higher. Such officiating allowance is payable prorata for each clay of work in the clerical cadre without any limitation as to the number of days foi vluch he officiates.

(iv) The provisions in rwa (iii) is operative only where suhird.nate staff is drawing less Msic pnv compared to the starting basic pay in the cleric?¹ cadre, v,hen the position is otherwise i.e. basic pay of Ihe person olficnitiiifr is more than the srnrtinu \isic r>a" of Ihe eleiicni endre, provisions of jrirn (ii) -'in' ipoi'^nWc639_ THE GAZEITE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II—Six. 3(\\)] followng illustrations shall clarify the position further :—

1. When a clerk at Basic pay oi Rs. 2240 is on leave and trie ba>ic pa^ of sub-staff who officiates is Rs. 1930.

Since the Basic pay of the person officiating is moic than the starting Basic Pay of Cleri- cal Cadre i.e. Rs. 1750 the allowance shall be payable as per clause (ii) i.e. Rs. 144.75 (7.5 per cent OL RS. 1930).

2. When a clerk at Basic pay of Rs. 2240 is on leave and the basic pay of sub-staff who officiates is Rs. 1690.

Since the Basic pay of the person officiating is les-, than the starting Basic pay of Cleri- cal cadre, the allowance shall be calculated as per clause (iii).

15 per cent of Rs. 1690 : Rs. 253.50.

OR

Difference of Basic pay of the person officiating and the person against whom chance is given : Rs. 550 Amount whichever is less

OR

Rs. 253.50 (If the les&er amount is worked out as difference of BPs, it should not bo less than 7.5 per cent of BP of the person officiating).

Difference between Basic Pay of sub-staff and

starting basic pay of

clerical cadre : Rs. 60 Amount whichever is

higher : Rs. 253.50 Allowance payable

would be : Rs. 253.50 Branrihes|oflices are advised to be j>uided and ensure payment of officiating allowance to the subordinate staff accordingly.

Sd|-

GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS)" 9-A. Notice of chance—No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the condilions of service appli- cable to any workman in respect of any matter speci- fied in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect sueh change,—

(a) without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed in. nr.:r oi the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or (b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice:

P'rovided that no notice shall be requiied for effec- ting any such change—

(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award; or

(b) Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to vhom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulation-, Ch Jans in Defence Services) (Classification, Contiol ancf Appeal) Rules or the Tndian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules oi regulations that may be notified in this behalf bv the appropriate Government in the Official Ga/xtte, apply.

639*

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAUALPUR

Case No. CGlT|LC|R|2Mi90

Presiding Officer. ; Shri K. M. Rai.

"(iv) T>ic provisions ui paia (iii) is opeuithc only where subordinate stair, is di.iwmo. lest, basic pay compared fo the Mailing busie pay MI 1l"r; clerical cadie, whcii the por- tion is othciwise i.e. basic pay o\ ihc pT von oiijeiaLing is more llian h. • rta;li_- busic pay of the clerical cudie, piuvisUni. of para (ii) are applicable."

1. Sureslichandra Gupta S|o Shri Narsinphlalii,

13 Teachers Colony, Sagotl Road, katlam fMP).

2. Kamlesh Kothari S|o Chamdmal Kothairi,

1, Palace Road Ratlam.

3. Ashok Kumar Dangi, So Chandmalji Dangi,

Chowmukhi Pui Ratbin.

4. Jagdish Chan JIM Maheshwari,

S/o RLimchancli'j Maheshwari 548, Katjunagar R.Uluin (MP).

5. Rajendra Kumui Agrawnl, S|o Babulal

Agrawal,

B| 12, Sr. MIG Mhow Road. Ratlam.

6. Ajaya Shall S/o Chandulal Shah,

Station Road, Ratlam.

7. Jitcndra Singh S/o Shri S. M, Shah,

595 Katjunagar, Ratlam.

8. Miss Bharti Ojha D/o Shri Gourishankar

Ojha

95 Bihanlal Marg. Ratlam.

Incorporatej on

15-10-2001

9. Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta,

10. Shri Raj Kumar Malviya

11. Shri Rajendra Kumar Vijay

Versus

General Manager State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Head Office, Tilak Man;. Jaipui Branch Manager State Bank of Tiikaner and Jaipur

Station Road Ratlam. Non-applicants.

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

AWARD

Passed on I his 5th dav of July, 2001

I. The Government of India Ministry of Labour "idc order No. L-120!! 1133J87-D II(A)|IRB, III dated 16th October, 1990 has lefeired the following dispute foi adjudication bv this tribunal—

S.O. 3211.—In pursuance ol Section I'? ol the Industrial Dispute Act, IL)47 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Couit, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-10-2001.

LNo. L-l?on|m!8~-D.n(A)iTR(B-MT)l(B-ni AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officej

"Whether the action of the management of the SBBJ in tcrminatms the services of workmen mentioned in the Anne\F"re and with effect from the dates shown neainst their name is justified 7 If not, to what relief the work- men are entitled ?"6J>94 J T Ht GAZETTE OF 1ND[A :NOV, 24, 2001/ V3RAHAVANA 3, 1923 (PART I I - S E C. ? u )j required to pay retrenchment compensation to the workmen prior to tcnninjling the services as their •sci vices were for a contractual period and thereloic- >i came to an end after the expiiy oi the contractual period. In view of all these facts, the woikmen an¹ not entitled to reinstatement with other consequen- tial benefits.

6. The following issues arise for decision in tin =

ease and my findings thereon are given hereinafter: —

1. Whether the workmen are entitled to rein- statement with back wages and other conse- quential benefits.

2. Relief and costs ?

2. I"hc case lor the woikmen is that they were appointed tenipoianly .•;., cierk-cum-cashicr on various UULes L>y the Hianeh Managei, MaLe Bank or Bikaner and Jaipur, SlUiJon road, Railam in the year jy7(-", 77, 78, 7y and SO vide wi uteri appointment ordcis. The services or the workmen were dispensed with by the bank w.e.f. various dales mentioned in Annexure-A. The workmen had not continuously worked against the clear vacancy in the bank l'oi more than 240 days in a preceding year horn the date ol their termination due to the managements unfair labour practice. They weie neither served with the statutory notice nor paid the retrenchment compensation according to the provi- sions of Sec^25-b of tne 1.0. Aet, iy47. The Bank hntd agreed to absoib 'he workmen in the Bank ser- vices with a condition that they shall be treated as fresh employees. Subsequently the bank refused to abide by the terms of agreement.

li):

New Delhi, tht" 30"h Octobei, 2001 SO 3212 —In pursuance ot Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 nf 1947), the Ccntial Government hereby publishes tli'- award ol Lhe CenUal Government Industiul Tubunal cum Laboui Couit, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industnal Dispute between the employes in lela- lion to the management ot Pandyan Gt ima Bank and then vwikiiian which was received bv the Cen- tial Government on 29-10-2001.

[No L-12012 31 9 9 - l U ( B I )]

AJAY KUMAR Desk Officei

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-I ABOUR COURT, CIJFNNAT Friday the 14"h September, 200' PRESENT

K Kaithikcvan, Pusidmg Officer.

Industnal Dispute No 138 2001

(Tamil Nadu State Tndustnal Tribunal I D No 93/99)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) between the Workman Smt Nalmi Sekai and the Management of Pandyan Grama Rink, Virudhunagar)

BETWEEN

The Geneial Secietaiy, I Partv Claimant Pandyan Giama Bank Employees Association, \ nudhunagar

AND

The Chan man, II Party Management Pandvan Grama Bank, \ n udhunagai

APPPARANCC

For flic Clipmant Mis P VS GiiKlhai, D Geetha & Rajeni Ramadass, Advocates, Fm t)v Mameemrnt • Su N GR Pnsad, & S. Vaidyanathan, Advocates 1 he Govt ol India, Minisliy oL Laboui in c u i- cise of poweis contericd by chuse (d) ol sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) ol Seclion JO ol Industnal Dispute \a 1947 (14 of 1947) h>\c icluicd the concerned Industna] Dispute foi id|udi- cation vide Oidci No L 12012 31199 IR( B-M d ud JO-7 1999

This leluence has been made cailiet to the Tamil Nadu State Industnal InbunaJ, when, it w it, taken on file as ID No 93j99 When (he mattu was pending enquny in that Inbunal the Govt of India Mimstiv ol Laboui was pleased to ordei trinslcr nF this case liom that Fnbunal to this Tnbuna! loi id- indication On leceipt ol lecoids fiom that Jrihu- nal, the case has been taken on hie as I D No 138 ?001 and notices weie sent to the counsel on ie- coid on eithei side, mfotnmig them about the Iranslei ol this case to this Tubun.il, with a direc- tion to appeal before this Tribunal on 1 2-2001 On leeeipt oi notice tioin this Frihunal the counsel on either side piescnt with then lespcctive putie^ and piQseeuied this case fuithcr

When the matter came up before me loi 'inal heaiing on 31-7-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement Countei Statement, the other mit.Mial papers on record, the documentalv evidence let in on either side and upon heaiing the aigumenfs of 1 tur- ned counsel on eithei side and this m Uttr having stood over till this date for consideration this TtIhii nal has passed the following —

AWARD

The Industnal Dispute Tefeired to in the abo\e otder of leference bv the Central Govt loi adjudi- cation bv this Tnbunal is as follows —

"Whether the demand of the Pandvan Grama Bank Emplovces Union loi appointing Smt Nahm Sekar Messenger as a Cleik on compassionate giound¹ is |ust If not, to what relief the s nd \\ oik man is en- titled ""

2 The averments in the Claim Statement of the 1 Piit\ Claimant are briefly as follows —

The General Secretary ol Pandyin Grami Bmk Employees Union has raised this industnal dispute espousing the cause of Smt Nahm Sckai, th work man of 11 P nivlP indyan Giama Bank The I pait\ Cl iimant (heiein aftu lelened to is Petitumei) has alleged in the Claim Statement th it the concerned workman Smt Nahm Sekai has piven i po'tuig as a messcngei in the II Patty Management Pindy in Giami Bank (hercinaftei relcned to as Respon- dent) She was g'ven an appomtment alter her husband Mr Sekar an olhccr of the Respondent Bank died in harness on 13 7-92 Since the coneei- ned woikman has completed Vill standard ind has the nceessarv qualification foi ippointment as a Clerk she ipphed toi compassion ite appointment as a Clerk subsequent to the death of her husband But she wis given appointment as i messeiiPei in the Respondent B ink on 9-10-92 The action nf the Respondent is clearly contiary to Ciicular No 2|S36896 T HE G A Z E T TE OF INDIA : N O V. 24, 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 3, 1023 [PART J I — S r r. 3(ii)] dated 6-1-83 issued on the basis of instructions of Government ol India dated 5-7-82, Ihciefore, Ihe concerned workman neither representation dated 5-11-92 seeking appointment as a eleik as she posses- sed eligible qualification as po the said Cireulai No. 2|83 dated 6-1 -.S3. Respondent unilateially issued dated 6-1-83. The Respondent unilaterally issued a fresh ciicular No, 45 92 93 on 18-1-1993 bv which it has declaied that the educational qualification needed lor appointment ol a widow ot deceased em- ployee as a clerk is a pass in S.S.L.C. It is quite patent that the circuhn is prospective and cannot govern appointments made prior to I 8-1-93 as such the same would not apply to the ease of the work- man. Consequently, the Petitioner made a tepresen- tation to the Respondent and objected to the said Circular. The Respondent assured the Petitioner that the matter would be suitably redressed and would refer the matter to NABARD by its letter dated 15-5-93. The NABARD in turn, referred ihe matter to the Government of India by its letter dated 3-6-93, In the meanwhile, the ' NABARD has clearly indicated that the Government of Tndia letter dated 5-7-92 continues to be operative. Despite the reiteration on the part of NABARD, the Respon- dent has sent a lettei dated 20-6-94 to the workman rejecting her request. The workman accepted the point as a messenger by her letter dated 24-8-94 reserved her light to initiate legal proceedings in res- pect of her grievance. The action of the Respondent is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. It amounts 1O an unfair laboui practice. The Respondent is consti- tuted under the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and is bound by the instructions of NABARD and also of the Government of India. The Petitioner theiefore, raised a dispute before the La- bour Enforcement Officer (Central), Tuticorin, by her petition dated 29-10-96. The Management filed a reply dated 4-4-97 making pijvilege untenable pleas. On failure of conciliation, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) suhmitted a failure report. On the basis of which the present industrial dispute has hecn icferred tor adjudication bv this Tribunal. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'hle Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to post the concerned workman Smt. Ntilini Sekar ns a Clerk w e.f. 9-10-92 with all consequential bene- fits,

, - • '<

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the

If PartyiManagement aie briefly as follows : —

vacancies oi in expectation of any vacancies. So, the pic-iequisite loi compassionate appointment is possession of minimum qualification and suitability lor the post. It needless to maintain thai mere possession of minimum qualification will not entitle the dependent to claim appointment in a paiticular post. I he workman was offered with the post of messenger on 9-10-92 much prior to issuance of cireulai dated 18-1-93 modifying the educational qualification lor compassionate appointment. The educational qualification of the workman did not come in the way of her selection. The reason foi her non-selection to the post of clerk is her unsuita- bility for the post and not her qualification. As her husband died in harness on 13-7-92, the bank has taken all etlorts to get her appointed on compassio- nate ground and get the board's appioval for her appointment on 19-9-92, The appointment order was issued to her on 9-10-92 advising her to join duty nn or before 26-10-92. The concerned work- man instead of accepting the appointment requested to bank to give appointment to her brother instead of her. As her brother was ovei-aged, the hank could not accede to her request and advised her to join duty on 21-11-92. Jn the meantime, she came with another tepresentation dated 5-11 92 to posL her as a Clerk by cancelling her earlier representation requesting appointment of her brother. Her icprc- sentation was placed before the Board in its meeting on 12-5-94. The Hoard confirmed the decision al- ready taken in its meeting held on 19-9-92 appoint- ing her as messenger. As per the direction of the Board, the bank advised her to join duty on or before 30-6-94, She did not join duty but requested three months time to join duty for medical reasons. That was "also acccpied by the Bank, initially, she joined duty on 24-8-94 and *yas posted at the branch of her choice. Even though, the workman was found lit lor appointment as messenger it was not impera- tive on the part of the bank to appoint her immedia- tely because the Scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds provides that appointments can be made against specific existing vacancies or in expectation of vacancies. When the workman applied for job on compassionate grounds there were no vacancies of Clerks or Messengers and no vacan- cies were expected in the near future also. Despite the technical hurdles, in order to relieve the deceased employee's family from the unexpected hardships and distress, the Board of Directors of the Bank decided to aopoint her as a messenger. Thus, the bank has acted in a generous manner in granting her employment. As per the Supreme Court decision the consideration for employment on compassionate ground is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed ;is devoid of merits.

4. When the matter came up for enquiry before this Tribunal, documents were marked bv consent of counsel on either side as Ex. Wl to W9 and Ml to M8. No oral evidence was let in on either s'de, The learned counsel on e>thcr side have advanced (heir rcsrydive arguments.

As per the noims prescribed in the Respondent Rank General Manager's Circular No. 2|S3 dated 6-1-83, the bank rmy as its discretion appoint in the bank in any of the posts in clerical and -ubnrd'nate cadres. 1 ho appointment under this seheim\ srr:.ll not be made without prior sanction of the Board rnd to qualify f"r appointment, a dependent should ha^e passed mitvmum SSLC! Matriculation or its cqu'viieni fxanrnifinn, provided that in ihe v_;ne of a widov of deceased emolovee, the minimum quali- fication would be a pass in the Vill standard. Applicants will be interviewed bv selection com- mitted and to be apointed by the Board in order to assess their suitability for the particular post and appointments can be made against specific existing 6897 5. The point for my consideration is : —

"Whether the demand of the Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Union for appointing Smt. Nahm Sekar, Messenger as a Cleric on compassionate grounds is justified ? If not, to what reliet the said wprkman is entitled ?"

Point :—

In that letter it is clearly stated that earlier institu- tions contained in leher dated 5-6-81 issued to RKWS arc still operative. Ex. W8 is the xerox copy of tjic letter dated 20-b-94 sent by Chanman to me con- cerned workman Smt. Nalini Sekar, wheiein the con- cerned woikman w to the Respondent/Bank General Manage. In that she has> stated that she has received the appoint- ment order but requested the Management to juvc the appointment to hrr elder broher, who had studi- ed upto B A. As a reply to her request, under Ht. 1,13 the Chairman of the Respondent/Bank 5,cni a |ctt"r dated 6-11-92 to the concerned woilman Sm Ndi'ni Sekar, stating their innbility to conLidcr her request for appoiniment to her brother and inioimei her to report for duty at administrative office jt S.ittur on or'before 21-11-92 to accept the post oi M ^ c n g er under compassionate ground. Ex. M4 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 5-11-92 v.h:rh ]S marked as Ex. W4. Ex. M5 is the xerox copy of the ktler daterl 20-6-94 which is marked as Ex. WS Ex. M6 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 24-8-94 which is marked as Ex. W9. Ex. M7 is the xerox copy of the'seniority list as on 1-1-96 in the Pes- pondent/Bank. Ex. M8 is the xerox copy of the seivnrjty list as on 1-9-98 of the Respondent/Ban¹;

deceased employee's family from the unexpected hardship and distress, the Board of Directors of the Bank decided to appoint her as messenger. It is fur'her argued by the learned counsel for the Res- pondent that only after assessing the suitability of the Petitioner the Board of Directors have found that she is unsuitab'e for the post of clerk and the non- selection of the Petitioner for the post of clerk is not on her qualification. From this it is seen that the Beard had given approval for her appointment on 19-9-92 for the post of Messenger because she has found unsuitable for the post of clerk The same hns been confirmed b> the Board when her represen- tation was placed before the Board in its meeting on 12-5-94. Th'it decision of the Board is in accord- ance with the schema for appointment under Ex. Wl wh'ch was in force at that time. As per clause 5 Circular VI, the concerned workman Smt. Nalini Sekar was given the post of Messenger after assess- ing her suitability for that post. So under such c'rcunrtance% it cannot be said that the appointment given to Smt. Nalini Sekar as Messenger by the Man- agement of Pandyan Grama Bank is unjustified. So, ¹hs demand of the Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Un:on for appointing Smt. Nalini Sekar, Messenger ns a Clerk on compassionate ground is not justified. Thus the noin< is answered accordingly.

7. In the result, an Award is passed holding that •h- d^raind of th- Pandvnn Grama Bank Employees Union for appointing Smt. Nalini Sekar, Messenger as a Clerk on compassionate grounds is not justified, but the Management of Pandvan 'Grama Bank can consider h"r request for ap'wintment as Clerk when the next vacancy arise in clerk post on finding her suitability to that post in preference to others. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenograohcr, transcribed and tvped bv him, corrected and pronounced by me in thf oojn court on this day the 14th September, 200 n.

K. KAKTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I Party|Claimam :

Ex. No. Date Description Wl 5-7-82—Xerox copy of the circular issued by the Government of India.

W7 22-3-94.—Xerox copy of the letter from NABARD to the Respondent|Management.

W8 20-6-94,—Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Smt. Nalini Sekar.

W9. 24-8-94.—Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to the Respondent.

For the II PartyjManagement : Ex. No. Date Description Ml 28-11-94.—Xerox copy of the Government of India, Department of Per. and Trg. O.M observation of the Supreme Court on Compassionate appointment,

M2 -Nil- .—Xerox copy of the represen- tation from Smt. Nalini Sekar to the Res- pondent.

M3 6-11-92.—Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Smt. Nalini Sekar.

M4 5-11-92.—Xerox cony of the representation from Smt. Nalini Sekar to the Respondent.

M5 20-6-94.—Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Smt, Natini Sekar.

M6 24-8-94.—Xerox copy of the representation from Smt. Nalini Sekar to the Respondent.

M7 1986 .—Extract from seniority list.

M8 J998 .—Extract from seniority list as on 1-9-98.

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI Y. P. BHATT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD

Reference (ITC) No. 15/93

ADJUDICATION BETWEEN

State Bank of India, r. N. Vidyalaya Campus, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015.

.First Party.

AND

The Workman, (Shri Vijaykumar Jcthalal Chopra), Block No. 7, Shejalnagar Society, Vear G. D. High School. Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad. ,. . Second Party.

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. K. Oza, Advocate for the first party.

Shri G. K. Parmar, Representative for the second party.

AWARD

The industrial dispute between the aforesaid parties was refened by the Desk Officer Shri S, K. Jain <^f the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi vide nis order No. L-12012/97/93/1R/B-I dt. °2/29-7-1993 to this Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute between the parties as stated in the schedule to the above order relates to the following demand "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the service. of Shri V. J. Chopra, Ex-Clerk-Typist w.e.f. 27-2-91 is legal and justified? If not, tn what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. Shri V. J. Chopra, hereinafter referred to as "The workman" was working as clerk-typist in the State Bank of India, Ahmedabad, hereinafter refer- red to as "The Bank" had committed certain irre- gularities in the savings accounts of about 10 to 11 customers of Naroda Industrial Estate Branch during the period from 8-10-88 to 17-11-88 for which the workman was chargesheeted and a domestic enquiry was conducted against him. The workman had admit- ted all the charges levelled against him and requested to take lenient view and the Bank had, instead ol dismissing the workman, discharged him from the services of the Bank by an order dated 27-2-1991- It is that order which has been challenged by the workman by way of present reference. The workman had filed statement of claim at Ex. 3 alongyvith which be had produced Order of Discharge vido Annexure A-Ex. 34. Order of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Spl. C.A. No. 6347/91 vide Annexurc B-Ex. 38 Departmental appeal to Dy. General Manager vide Annexure C"Ex. 35. Order of appellate authoritv and Dy. General Manager confirming the order of discharge passed by the disciplinary authority and Regional Manager vide Annexure D=-Ex. 36, Appoint- ment order of the workman as clerk-typist dt. 12-2-71 vide Annexure E. Order of suspension of the work- man vide Annexure F=Ex. 15, Charge sheet issue J to the workman vide Annexure G=Ex. 16, reply of the workman to the charge sheet vide Annexure H- Ex. 17 and Show Cause Notice dated 13-12-90 vide Annexure I="Ex. 24. It was stated by the workman in the statement of claim that the first charge against him was regarding the misappropriation of Rs. 19,700; that he had deposited Rs. 4400 and Rs. 15,300 res- pectively prior to and after the issue of suspension order to him; that he was a clerk-typist and not a cashier or a teller ; that he was given extra duty of teller at the time when he was suffering from serious mental depression and that he had begged tor appology and assured that such lapses will not take place in future; that the authority of Bank had assured him that if he admits the guilt, the Bank will take a lenient view and will impose penalty other than penalty of dismissal or discharge; that he is having senous family responsibilities and requested the Tribunal to exercise the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dis- putes Act; that he has not challenged the legality of the enquiry; that he has unblemish record ot service right from 1971; that the appellate authority had decided his departmental appeal in a stereo typed manner without applying his mind. Accordingly, the workman requested to reinstate him to his original post with continuity of service and with back wages etc.

3. The Bank had filed its defence statement at Ex. 7 contending inter alia that the sound working of the banking institution rests on the integrity, hon- esty and efficiency of the employees and the work- man; that the confidence of the people at large in the banking institution is the capital ot the bank and if that confidence is breached, the banking business would face serious crisis and would paralyse the trade and weaken the nation's strength; that the Bank hai a separate set of service lules for its workmen, which are popularly known as "Award Staff" which provide tor specific penalties for Gross misconducts and Minor misconducts. The Bank thereafter stated the facts regarding enquiry, admission of the charges by the workman, the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Show cause notice in which it was informed to the work- man that the bank had tentatively decided to discharge him from services of the Bank, the workman was also given chances to appear before the disciplinary autho- rity but he failed, passing of order of discharge, fun; of Special Civil Application No. 6347 of 1991 befo the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and wi hJrawal of the same, the filing of departmental appeal by fhj workman and confirment of the penalty imposed b the disciplinary authority. The Bank denied that the order of discharge was i legal, invalid and inoperative It is submitted that the workman deserved the punish- ment of dismissal but considering the length ol his service, his family circumstances and his voluntarv admission of the charges, he was discharged from the services of the bank; that reoayment of the amoun* by the workman does not wipe oat the misconduct committed by him; that the workman had voluntarily accepted the duties of a teller and had also executa' a bond on 10-9-88; that he very well understood Uj.

responsibilities of a teller and was also paid teilci'.; a d v a n ce iioiA time to time. It is denied that ,„, authority ot the bank had assured him of a lighter puntsnrnent instead of dismissal or discharge. It is LiubmiUea by the Bank that in the present cabe n i poweis under Section i l -A of the Industrial Disputes Act could be exeicised in view ol the decisions or Hon'ble Supieme Court and Hon'bie Gujarat High Couit. It is denied that appellate authority liad passed order m a stereo typed manner, without applying him mind. It is aiso demed that punishment is unduly harsh or excessive. The Bank had thcieaftcr narrated certain decisions of the High Courts and submitted lhat the punishment is proper and adequate considci- ing the giavuy or the misconduct committed by the vv'oik.iian; that- conunuance of the workman in the iniaauion would be haimful and damaging to (he i.'i'ere.t or the Bant and decoidingiy, tne bam*, has j;;quejieJ lo dism ss this rcfcience ease.

4. The Bank has produced the documentary evidence concerning the domestic enquiry and the same have been exuibitcd vide £x. 15 to Ex. 38. Vide Ex. 11, ihc irarncd aavoca.c ior the workman stated that die legality anu validity oi the departmental enquiry '5. not cnahenged and that the rciicl is ciahned under ieonon l i -A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Vide bx. 12, die lea mod advorates or both the parties billed that they do not want to lead any oral evidenc- jn fnis case and vide Ex. 13 the learned advocate tor the womnan has cited and produced an award made by the liuu^rrui tribunal consisting of Shri R. S. Srui.ua in ivcicrence (IfC) No. 9/93 between the State ±ianl; ot India and the workman Shii Behun Puishjttam.al Pandya. It was also stated in Ex. 13 (hat tiic chaige levencd against the workman in that care are aiso similar to the charges in the present va^e: thai the workman was reinstated in that case by '.he then Trbunal. The arguments were heard by m\ learned predecessor but he could not make an i.vard. fJie learned Shri Parrnar for the workman and the learned Shri Bushanbhai Oza for the Bank had ajvanced theii arguments before this Tribunal.

5. Enquiiy is admittedly not in dispute. What is to be seen is, whether in the given circumstances oi lh'3 CU'JC, IS it possible tor this Tribunal to exercise the discretion unJer SecPon 11-A of the Industrial Dispu es Act fur th: pmpose of awarding a lessei punishment than (he discharge from service. H ts aoo not disputed that the workman had admitted 4he charges levelled against him in reply to the chaige sheet, as also during the cou't.c ot the domestic en- quiry. It is also an admitted position that the work- man had requested lor mercy and had left himself U> the tender meicies of the Bank. For properlv appre- ciating the rival contentious of the parties, it would be necessary to have a qirck look at the enquiry conducted against the workman.

man lor being credited to their accounts in The Naroda Inausaiai Estate tsrancn during the period from 8th October. 1988 to i 7 - i i - S 8; mat tne credit cntnes weie authenticated by the workman but the amount md not appeai in me teller's receipt scroll and⁴ thus made ncUuous credit entries in the accounts and mis- appropriated tne amount ot Ks. 19,/(JO. It was also aiieged mat as teuer tne workrnah" was encmed to receive tne amount below Rs. 2000 however ne receiv- ed KS. 24uu, 15UV, 2500 on different daies. The iormer acis weiC termed as Grpss nusconduct and me letter aei was lermed as Mmor misconduct as per reievaui paias oi Ue^ai Award and iiastry Award, ine wons.iiian was auo supplied with tne list ot tne customers lugemer witn tne aetans ot amount they iiiiueicu io iuin on nitterem da.es. ine worKinan re- piieu ine ciiaige sneei vide £,x. 17 on 9-Z-69 suiting mat, ne nad ounoweu n nou&mg loan lronrtne i^anK. uuc me iiniouni win nut aatquate ana ne)ice ne nad burrowed aiso iioin. piivate money i-enuer.s v\iiicli re- suiLed in nuge ueot ; umt ne coulu not pay umbiy in^taunen>s to tne money lenders wxio piea^uused niiii; uiaL on accouiii oi nnaneiai consuanus ne was suueimg ironi ucpieajion ana otner psycnosomatic iiinesj, tnai in sui>n eiicumsLanpes ne eouiiiiiueu. cer- idin lapses wmcn ne couiu noi mmK oi uunng jus eiit-ne aeivice oi itt yeais and ne a^suied mat ne will Hut commit sucn lapses in luture and tenuei apology, me ±.'dnh. deeiued io noid a depai imenlai eaquuy viue £,A. io on LL-I-&?. Vide nx. iy me enquiry u m ui icm nit_iiiduon to me workman io leiujm J-UCJCUL m LUG cn^uiiy. i^x. 20 is me staterneai ot int. woutuidii ittuiueu in me enquiry wncj^m tlie me woiKmaii stated to have understood. tJae charges, me snuwn unwniingnt-ss lo be ueiendea by a union Kprc&enidtive, also swied thdt he wao pnysically ana jiVeiuduy comi'ortabde, irie adniuted the Urst cnarge ana also staled mat he did, not want to verily the original aocuments. He also admitted the charge of negligence. in_er workman, was read out.the clharge- blieeL and supporting allegations upon which ihe wurk- man aumitteu ihe same and corrected that instead or ten it snoujd be eleven customers and accepted unconditionally all the charges and also produced writing ddied 16-8-89 vide t x. 21 and 22. The En- quiry Oincer viue Ex. 23 submitted ms findings on l }-6-89 Jjoldipg the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority and ttie Regional Manager of the Bank issued show cause notice to thf workman on 23-12-90 vide Ex. 24 call- ing upon him (o show cause on or before 20-12-90. Vide b,x. 25, the Bank extended time up to 31-12^90- Vide Ex. 26 dated 31-12-yO, the workman stated t'nat tie was suffering hum joundice and, was unable' to a.tend to the disciplinary authority. Vide Ex. 27, the disciplinary authority stated that jf the workman was not in a position to avail opportunity of personal hearing he may send his written submission/represen- tation by 13-1-91. Vide Ex. 29, the workman stated that it was, highly essential to see the disciplinary authority in* perefln and that written submission will not serve the purpose Hent% the disciplinary autho- r i ty extended theT" tim,e/ upto 28-1-91 vide Ex. 30. Vide'Ex. 31, the tvflrkmai stated that he was still suffering from jaundice"¹^and bed rest advised to him by the doctor and that be will be able to attend after 20-2-91. The disciplinaiy authority vide Ex. 32 6. The workman was suspended from services of the Bank vide Ex. 15 dai com"nunii.aiion to ine v.oiitman belore passing the prder oi discharge. The workman did not remain present to make pcr- scnal representation even on the 4*te as per his choice and hence the disciplinary authority after • considering the circumstances oi the case, passed the ordei oi discharge from service oft the Bank against the work- man on 27-2-01 wihich is produced at Ex. 34.

7. It appears that the workman moved the Hon'

bie HigJi.Court'by way of Special Civil Application being Spl. CA No. 6347/91 (Ex; 38) and subsequent- ly wnhdrew -the same or the purpose of filing depart- mental appeal. The¹ workman hied departmental appeal on 11-10-91 before the Dy. General Manager or the Bank vide Ex. 35 and the appellate authority confirm- ed tne order ot disciplinary authority vide Ex. 36 nn 12-12-9L

9. While going through the documentary evidence regaraiug iiiie enquiry, uiis i nmuicii' CUM* adViau ivyo circumstances ot laie action cty tne'Bank lor which no explanation is found anywhere in the eiiquiry and inat is why, this Tribunal cannot resist^ itself from stating said CircumSttoccs. r hc first incident *js that the workman was given charge sheet on 27-11-89 and (Ex.. 16). The workman had replied the charge sheet on 9-2-89 admitting the charges at the same time apologising and requesting to take a lenient view (Ex. 17). Still however, the disciplinary authority takes a decision to hold enquiry only on 22-7-89, i.e. after more than five months allowetf to lapse for taking the decisions to hold enquiry, even though the workman had categorically admitted the charges levelled against him. The decision to hold enquiry is at Ex. 18. The second incident appears to be more serious than the first stated above. After the enquiry m which tile workman had admitted his charges, the Enquiry Offi- cer submitted his findings on 23-8-89 (Ex. 23). The Bank nor the disciplinary office* took any action of serving a show cause notice, to the workman up to 13-12-90. The tune lapsed here was of one y-ar, three months and about twenty days. What the Bank was doing all this period right fronj, 23-8-89 to 13-12-90 is not explained anywhere. It cannot be said that these much period was spent in preparing the show cause notice. In uny case, these are two circumstances which I had to point out in this award, but even those circumstances would not justify this, Tribunal to interfere in the order of punishment be- cause the misconduct chaxged and proved was of a serious nature. Learned Shri Oza submitted that in the case of minor misconduct, the Tribunal can inter- fere with the punishment out when the major or pross misconduct is committed, the Tribunal is not entitled to intetefere in the punishment of discharge/dismissal or termination of service.

10. Learned Shri Parmar cited the decision (award) of learned Tribunal Shri R S. Shukla, a;, he then was, rendered in Reference (OC> No. 9 / 9 3. The: workman in that case was also working as teller at the relevant time in the State Bank of India and nad misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4050. The Tribu- nal had awarded reinstatement to the post of peon. Learned Shri Oza had attacked the said award by showing certain paragraphs of the awarJ. I would say that the award or decision of equal authority Cannot bind the other authority having the cariie jurisdiction. It may be used as guideline, but I think that the said award would not serve as a guide, be- cause the learned Tribunal after dealing with the contention raised on behalf of the workman had come to conclusion that it cannot be accepted that the workman had admitted the charges (in that case) on assurance given by Shri Ambani. tihe Enquiry Officer; that the workman had misappropriated the amount cf Rs. 4050 on five different occasion. The learned Tri- bunal also disagreed with the suggestion t0 degrade the workman from the post of clerk to 'hp pnst of a peon, however in the operative part of his aw.irf, the learned Tribunal directed that sa?d workman fTiri Behaii Pursbottamlal Pandva should be ^nooin'ej ^ peon in continuity with the pre\ious service (which he rendered as a clerk).,

8. Learned Shri Panner for the workman .submitted fhat the workman was appointed as a clerk-typist and was not duly bound- to nandle the cash. It is an ad- mitted position that the workman was a cleik-typist as can be seen from the appointment order Annexure 'E'. But, in Uhe defence statement the Bank stated that the workman had accepted the duty of Teller vo.untaniy and had also executed a bond for that purpose; that the workman was paid teller's allow- ance from time to time whenever he was entrusted with such work. It appears that the workman had not raised s*uch an issue befurc tihe enquiry officer, that he was forced to do the job of teller. So far as the alleged financial constraints of the workman are concerned, which tempted him ^o commit nvs-i conduct in the weakest moment of his life, the work- man was earning a salary of Rs. 4354-55 ps. as can be seen from the defence statement, • at the time of his discharge in 1901. Such an amount by way of salary was not s small amount in those dav*om different onglr. It is true that the workman had repaid arnoimr- in two instalments prior to and after the issuance of the sus- pension order. The order of suspon^i^ is dat^d 5-12-88 (Ex. 15). The workman had misappropriated the funds dur;n? 8-10-88 to 17-11-88. Thu;, ihe work- man was guilty of temporary misappropriation. But in view of this Tribunal, nvsasDronrin'ion or d's- honestv of ^whatsoever nature cannot be condoned merely because the same was for a temporary oenod or the amount involved was small one. Lcsrrned Shri Parmar also submitted that the workman had a dean record of eighteen years of service. It may be true that the workman may not havs, cqrfiwiitted nirh a misconduct in his past service. flirt even a solitary lapse of the present nature should be viewed seriously, in thf v'p\" of this Tribunal. Learned Shri Parmar al^o submitted that since tlhe worVnvm hnri admi^fi his guilt frankly, leniency should be shown to him. This Tribunal does not think, it would be justified in interferinc with the punishment especially when the misconduct is of gross nature.

11. 'Regarding' t ht powers -ot the Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal, under Sec-6902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ A G R A H A V A NA 3, 1923 [PART It—SEC 3(ii)] tion 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Shri Parmar submitted that as the employers were exploiting the workman by inflicting the last punish- ment, this the said Section was brought on the statute after a long battle with the legislature and hence the Tribunal is well empowered to interfere in the punish- ment inflicted upon a workman. Learned Shri Parmar has cited 1982 (45) FLR 150 Ashok Pandurang Taware V/s. S. D. Rane, Presiding Officer, I have gone through the said judgement. It was a case where- in the workman was charged for indiscipline, bad behaviour, habitual late coming and indifference to work etc. On facts, the said decision cannot apply to present case. So far as the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tripura Gramin Bank and others V/s. Tarit Baran Roy and another, 2001 I LLJ 1330 observed that :

"In our opinion, those principles engrafted in Section 11A of the industrial Disputes Act cannot be engrafted into the disciplinary proceedings either in Ielation to Government servant or other employee whese service conditions arc governed by set of rules and not the provisions

Going through the decision at a glance it appears that a cashier in the Gramin Bank was chargesheeted and dismissed from service. The cashier filed a civil suit, after unsuccessful attempts at departmental appeal. The trial Judge found that enquiry vitiated on ac- count of variation of principles of natural justice. He therefore, decreed the suit. The Bank had preferred an appeal which was allowed and it was held that Civil Court would not entitle to interfere with the findings of a domestic Tribunal. In second appeal the Hon. High Court reappraised the evidence and came to a different conclusion. It was the decision of the Hon. High Court which was challenged before Hon. Supreme Court and in wbish above observations were made. Learned Shri Oza cited 2001 II LLJ 48 Prasad Film Laboratories, Madras V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and another. In thai case the workman had stolen the property (raw films) of very small quantum. The Labour Court had direct- ed reinstatement. It was held in th; said decision that the order of the Labour Court was arbitrary and cannot be allowed to stand because it amounts to abuse of discretionary jurisdiction conferred by Sec- tion 11-A.

12. In the case of State Bank of India V/s. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another 1998(80) FLR 849 the Hon'ble Madhyr; Pradesh High Court (through Hon'ble Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari) stated the law on Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman (N. K. ShukJa) in that case was a cashier. A shortage of Rs. 9009 was detected and a domestic enquiry was held against him. A dispute was raised in respect of his dismissal and the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence held that only a case of negligence was made out and he therefore directed that the workman should be reduced TO ne\t lower rank instead of dismissal. In the aforesaid case, the HonTrfe High Court (of Madhya Pradesh) seated :

is placed on behalf of the workman and subsequent case of The East India Hotels and Christian Meaical College Hospital Em- ployees Union, the Supreme Court has been reiterating the exisiancs of limited scop$ for interference by Labour or Industrial Courts in the disciplinary action of the em- ployers even after introduction of the pro- visions under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act which confer additional power on the courts in such matters. It is firmly settled in the decisions of the Suprcnft Courts (supra) that where a proper enquiry has been held by the employer and the rinding of miscon- duct has support from the evidence adduc- ed in the enquiry, the Tribunal has no juris- diction to set in judgement over the deci- sion of the employer as an appellate body. The Courts can interfere in the decision of the employer only on rinding that the en- quiry was unfair or the findings reached were perverse or without evidence. The Court can also interfere where the employer is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour prac- tice or mala fide or where the punishment is harsh and oppressive "

There is no question enquiry being unfair or findings perverse. Victimisation, maiandes unfair laour prac- tice cannot be inferred from the facts stated earlier. The punishment also cannot be said to be harsh. Under the circumstances, it would not be possible to interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the work- man. In fact, in view ofthe aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court this Tribunal has no juris- diction even to exercise the power under Section 11-A of the I J>. Act. Even otherwise, the misconduct being of a serious nature, this Tribunal does not think it proper to interfere in the quantum of punishment, or to alter the same in any manner. In 2000 (1) GLR 877 Victor F. Parmar V/s. Ekcon Engineering Co. Ltd., the Hon'ble High Court stated that the powers under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act has to be exercised judiciously and the Tribunal or the Labour Court as the case may be can interfere with the decision of management under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt established or alleged against the de- liquent workman. In number of decisions, this Court has time and again held that misappropriation, dis- honesty and theft, it held to be established or proved, would be the major punishment and normally, dis- missal order passed by the compeptent disciplinary authority should not be interfered with by the Labour Court or thw Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. In view of the aforesaid position of law, there appears to be no substance in this refer- ence case and hence the same requires to be dismis- sed. I, therefore pass the following order :

ORDER

This reference is dismissed. There is no orders a" to costs,

Ahmedabad,

Stated: 4-10-200J.

•Time and again fron} thVoase ei Firestone Tyre

add Rubber Co. on which strong reliance

Y. F. fcHATT, Industrial Tribunal

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 S.O. 3214.—In pursuance of Section J7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govt, hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation, to the management of North Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-10-2001.

[No. L-41012/15/2000-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS rRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

ID. No. 38|2OOO

Ref. No. L-41(!12I15|2000-IR(B-I) dt. 30-5-2000 BETWEEN

The Zonal Secretary, All India Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rty Employees Association (N R Rly. Zone) £-41 |B, Aishbagfa, Rly. Colony N. R. Rly. Policlinic Lucknow (UP.) (espousing cause of Ram Das).

AND The Divisional Railway Manager(P) North Eastern Railway, DRM Office. Ashok Marg Lucknow (U.P.)

AWARD

By Order No. L-41012/15/2000/IR(B-I) dated 30-5-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A)" of section 10 I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), referred this industrial dispute between The Zonal Secretary, All India Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association N. R. Railway, Lucknow (espousing cause of Ram Das) and The Divisional Railway Mana^cr(P), North Eastern Railway, Luck- now for adjudication,

6903 The reference is produced as under :

"Whether the action of the North Eastern Rail- way in not promoting Ram Das Wallman to the post of (Awar Lipik) by Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. In brief, Ram Das, Wallman, has raised this industrial dispute through its Sponsoring union All India Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes Rly. Employees Association (N. R. Zone) E-41|B Aish- bagh *Rly. Colony, Lucknow claiming promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk in group 'C\ He was working as waliman in group 'D' post. His grievance is that by letter dated DRM|P|LKO Junct| E-II/1283/Misc./Engg. dated 26-11-1991 a notifica- tion was issued to fill up the post of office clerks in 'lie grade of Rs. 950-1500 in class 'C against 33% Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes quota. At that time he was working in the office of Inspector of Works(IOW). This notification was received in the said office on 30-11-1991 but date of examina- tion was not communicated to him with a view to prevent him to appear in test, to be held on 8-12-1991. In absence of knowledge that test is scheduled for 8-12-1991, he proceeded on earned leave from 3-12-1991 to 9-12-1991 and thus could not appear in the lest. This serious lapes on the part of the Inspector of Works (IOW), in not com- municating him about proposed test scheduled for 8-12-1991, he was deprived of opportunity to sit in the test though he was fully qualified. It is further pleaded that it was open to management to arrange a supplementary test to consider him as provided m rules, but despite lepcated requests no supplementary test was arranged by the management and so he was unjustly denied opportunity to be selected in class 'C post of lower Pivifion Clerk against Scheduled Castes quota. He furthei asserted that some per- sons who failed to the test were considered by inter- view but the workman was denied this opportunity also.

3. The management has denied allegations made by the workman. It has asserted that the workman was fully aware with the date of test proposed on 8-12-1991. This information was displayed on the office board. Furthermore, a notice was sent at residential address of the workman and was serviced on his wife who assured to inform the workman. The workman had knowledge ofthe proposed date of test and deliberately avo'ded to appear. Initially, he applied for Earned Leave for 3-12-1991 and 4-12-1991 wh;ch was sanctioned to him. He was expected in office on 5-12-1991, but unauthorisedly, absented himself and joined the office only on 9-12-1991. Later, he submitted another leave ap- plication to sanction leave from 3-12-1991 to 9-12-1991. The workman failed to avail opportu- nity due to his unauthorized absence and also not civine proper and correct address durinp the leave. There was no ill motive to deny him opportunity.

4. The main controversy, thus, is, whether the management deliberately d;d not inform date of test 6904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 24, . 2Q01/AGRAHAYANA 3,1923 [PART II—SEC. (ii)] 8. Coming to the claim of supplementary test, the 'iemor Divisional Personal Officer (Per.) in his testi- mony clarified the rules that in case of open exami- nation like held on 8-12-1991, supplementary test is not permissible. This statement is to be accepted and in this court also, the workman not wronged, 5. Both the parties relied on documentary and oral evidence-. The wdrkman examined himself and also submitted copy of representations made from time and again seeking supplementary test on plea thai his non-appearance in the test on 8-12-1991 w.is caused due"tD failure of Inspector of Works (IOW) in not apprising date of examination.

9. Thus, there is no evidence to fix accountability on the management to deny opportunity to the workman. The workman suffered flue to his own lapses and he is not entitled any relief. The fact that some employee who failed in the examination was called for interview would also not benefit the workman whose cast* has to judged on the basis of ni"iit of his own cos".

10. Accordingly, the award is against the workman.

He is not entitled to any relief.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

6. The management, on the other hand, maintain- ed that the workman had full knowledge of the^ date of test and deliberately avoided it. There was no lapse in communicating, date of test to the work- man and lapse, if any, was attributable to the workman alone. In support of its plea, the manage-r ment filed copies of two leave applications filed py the workman, notice sent to him on residential ( address and also intimation to the authorities that the workman is one of the employee to appear in the te$t. It was also pleaded by the management that the test held on 8-12-1991 was open test for which supplementary test is not permissible Only, in case of' departmental promotion test, a supplemen-, tary test is permissible contingent on certain condi- tions.

New Delhi, the 30th October. 2001

S.O. 3215.—In pm-sti&nce of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lahour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ISforth Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 29-10-2001.

[No L-41012I237I2000-JR(B-I)] A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TR [ BUNT \L-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Presiding Officer. Rudresh Kumar.

ADIUDICATION

I D. "No". 35I20O1

Ref, No. L-4UH?l217!'>n00l[R(B-Ii Dated : 14-2-2001

BETWEEN

^pmbef Executive PR.S.S. M-IHII Pnstpm Railwnv ">snir;3. KAI22 Premwati Nnoar

7. As the factual scenario emerges, there is no dispute that the workman was eligible to appear in the proposed tgst, that intimation to hold test was received in the Office of Inspector of Works(IOW) on' 30-11-1991, two days before the workman proceeded on earned leave with a vifcw to appear in court case n Gprakhpur and la|er, eg return from leave he filed another application seeking earned leave w.e.t , 3-12-1091 to 9-12-I99L, which was allowed on f 16-12-1991, and also that,he filed an application earlier to it seeking leave for 342-1991 and 4-1-2-1991. Though it was submitted that applica- tion for e.irned fcav? for 3-12-1991 and 4-12-1991 was not filed by b;m, but in absence of denial of Mgn&iure on this application and also reliable oral evidence On thr saia point, it has to be accepted that Hie wo/kman sought leave for 3-12-1991 and 4-12-1991 only at the first instance and filed the second application on return from leave i.e. after 9-12-1991. In both these applications, the work- man d'd uot give address of Gorakhpur though re- qu'red by nrta, s'j as to enable the management to < ,.nd information at some emergency. There is no cv'denc- that (he management had any motive to nre-vcnt the wurkmnn in appearing in the test. The Utter chtt.'d 7-12-1991 sent to the department, in- c'uded name of the workman as one of the employee to undertake test. This indicates that the manage- ment was not vindictive against the workman. A 1et*er was sent to him on his local residential address 1-y inecial mccsanger, and the endorsement over the U-ticr rives inference that his family members assured tr-. inform ^hc workman about the forthcoming test. HMI tfr workman not extended his leave, he could have EJt orportun'ty to aopefM" in the test. Even on "ccent;ng the fact th?t the letter intimating date of t ^t wns received in office¹ of Imoector of Works (TOW> on 30-11-1991, the workman is not entitled to rel'ef. Normally two or three days are taken in. in+'mnt'"n° the concerned emoloyccs in such cases. It was. "o' known tint I>K- workman would not return, from leave oh 5-12-1091. In sum total, non avail- ing of opportunity, to anpear in the test on 8-12-19^1 was due to lapse of the workman,' Manak Nagar Lucknow-22600] (Tn the matter of Sukii Deo Singh)

AND

Coaching Depot OJliccr North Eastern Railway Lucknow Jn. Charbagh Lucknow (U.P.)-226001.

AWARD

By order. No. L-4101 2i237(20(K)| 1R (B-T) dated 14-2-2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers, conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (!) and subjection 2(A") of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dismite between the Mem- ber Executive, P.R.S.S., N.R. Railwav, Lucknou espousing cause of Sukli Deo Singh and the Coachinu Depot Officer, N.E, R,iilw;iy, T ucknow for adjudica- tion.

The reference is produced as under :

"Whether the action of the management of North Eastern Railwav, Lucknow in not allowing duty to workman Shri Sukh Deo Singh w.ei. 4-3-2000 though woikman is atten- dinc work place and ofRce clailv regularly, is legal and justified *> Tf not, what relief the workman is ent'ibcf ?"A

2. Both the workman nnd the employers were issued registered notices on J 2-3-2001, but none of the parties aopeared. Fresh notices were sent to them on 9/10 4-2001. 2-^-2001. 21-5-2001 and 2-7-?001. Bo*h the parties failed tn respond the notices.

3. As both the parties are absent, the adjudication cannot proceed on merit. As such, the reference is adjudicated as 'no claim award'. 'Lucknow, 16-10-2001.

New Delhi, the 5th November, 200]

S.0.3216. -Tn pursuance of Seotion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), (he Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in ilic Industrial Dispute between the employeis in relation to the management of State Bank of Indore and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 2-11-2001.

[No. L-120 |2/l8/92-IRB-III/(JB-F)] AI AY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3497 GI/ 2001—7

6905

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/87/92

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI K. M. RA1 Shri Bhagchand Sawarii, Ex Clerk, State Bank cf Indore, 358 Sadhu Vusvani Nagar,

Indore

....Applicant Versus

Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of Indore, Zonal Office, 103, Kanehanbagh, Indore Non-applicant AWARD

(Passed on this 18th day of Oclober-2001) 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L.12012/18/9Z-TRB.II1 dated 30-4.92 has referred the following dispute tVr adrudicntion by this tribunal.

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Indore in dismissing Shri Bhagchand Sawani fiom the services of State Bank of Indore (Cloth Mei chant Branch) w.c.f. 28-11-90 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the work- man is entitled to?"

2. The case for the workman is that he wrs appointed as clerk in the State Bank of Indore in Oct. 1969. He continuously worked for 21 years with an excellent record. On 1.7-88, he was given a chargesheet by the management alleging therein that he had taken two bills from the despatch for sending him to State Bank of Indore Tirupati and State Bank of Indore Ahmedabad. The management wrongly alleged that these bill-, were not send by the work- man to the respective banks. In this way, the Bank alleged that the workman had committed mis- conduct under 19.5j He has denied all the charges by the reply dated 16-7-88.

3. The workman further alleges that M/s Sharda and Co. had an account with the State Bank of- Indore. They had an overdraft limit of Rs. 40,000/- and bill limit of Rs. 2 lakhs. The overdraft limit was clean and the bill limit was on submission of docu- ments. When any party submits bills and the Bank purchases it then it is sent to the collecting Bank for releasing money. In this process, it takes months for the collecting Bank to send amount to the pur- chasing bank. The only consequence is that the party who submits the bill is required to pay interest till realisation and no other consequences follows. Tn the present case, two bills were purchased by the State Bank v.f Indore from M/s Sharda and Co, for6906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART U - S E C. 3(ii)] Rs. 40,000 anil Rs. 23,000 respectively. With a view to .get quick realisation LP money, M/s Sharda nnd Co. wanted to send the Bank advice by hand so that the collection could be hUd e'Jrl> and their bill limit of Rs. 2 lakl.s will be again available lo them for 'further transaction. For this 1.1111 o^e, with the permission of the Manager, the envelopes of the bills were collected from the deipalchtr and sent to the respective banks through representative of M/s Sharda and Co. Both these bills were received by the State Bank of India TirupiHi branch and State Bank of Indore Ahmedabad biaiuh. Wien He amounts were not rcccACC¹ by the State Bank cf In (lore then the telegraphic and written reminders were sent to the said banks 011 10-7-85, 16-7-85 and 2-8-85. The said banks never replied to the State Bank of Indorc Thereafter ithc party was informed orally about the non-receipt of the reply and there- fore the,parly deposited Rs. 50.CC0 and Rs. :0,CC0/ on 29-8^85 and .16-10-85 with interest positively. Jn this way the Bank was never put to any loss in respect to profit and interest.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there was-neither tiny misconduct nor any justification for issue of chargeshcet against him. The DE con- ducted (by the ^management was an empty formality. Be was not gi.van adequate opportunity to defend his case properly. He was not allowed to engage any defence Assistant to defence his case before the Enquiry Officer. No opportunity was given to him by the Enquiry Officer to prove his defence. The management failed to produce the important wit- nesses to prove the real facts of the case. The State Bank of India Tirupati branch and the State Bank of Indore Ahmedabad branch never replied .speci- fically that they have not received the bills submitted by M/s Sharda and Co. in the State Bank of Indore. M/s Sharda and Co. had a fixed deposit of Rs. ",70,000 with'the Bank at the relevant time. The said company had also furnished security of Rs. 12 lakhs to the State Bank of Indore in respect to its business trans- actions. In this way there was no qutsuon of improper action as alleged by the management. The Enquiry Offi er had wrongly held the chaigcs proved against him. The report of the Enquiry Gffker i perverse. The Disciplinary -Authority illegally^ accepted the report of Enquiry Officer and imposed the-punishment of dismissal from service on him v de oarder dated 28-11-90. The order of dismissal f rL^ service deserves to DL- quashed, The workman is enti'lcd to reinstatement with back wages.

5. The case for the management is 'hat M/s Sharda and Co. is a proprietary concern Wife of (he workman is the sole proprietor of this concern. The State Bank of ludore purchased two biJJs irom M/s Sharda and Co. own by Hie workman's wife. The alut of these bi'Js was Rs. 20,000 find 25,000 respectively. The workman gave a letlcr to the des- patch department of the . Branch requesting for delivery of the b'":: [01 lorwaiding ihe s;nnc to the concerned hanks for collection. The bills were not returned for a long lime and therefore the Enquiry from State Bank of India, Tirupati and State Bank of Indore, Ahmedabad was made by ;he management •Both the banks advised that the said bills were not received by them. The amount under the bil's was deposited by M/h Shard;; find company and till then the amount to be withdrawn by bearer cheque by the workman was utilised The amount of the bi'l was deposited after a lapse of few months and therefore the workman was chiirge^he^ted because of this act and omission on his behalf. The chargosheet wfis served on him and the DE was conducted in accor- dance with the rules. The workman was given ample opportunity to defend his ease properly . He participated in the enquiry and submitted his defence before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer had committed the enquiry in a just and fair manner. No prejudice has been c-Hused to the workman. The workman deliberately did not tender the bil's to the concerned banks .for collection with an unterior motive. AM the relevant doouments were .filed.and tho witnesses were produced during the Enquiry proceedings The DB was conducted in a just and proper manner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report after considering the material available on lecord. The report submitted by him is just and proper

6 Tm minagenunt further alleges 'that the Disciplinary Authority accepted the 'report of the Enquiry Officer and the workman were dismissed from service The order pissed by the management is petfeetJy just and proper The workman pre- ferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who a!so dismissed the sama holding the same as without substance. The imposition of punishment of dis- missal from service is appropiiate in tho circum- stances of the case and therefore it does not require any interference. The workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wnges

7. The folio m'm issues arise for decision in his case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter:

1. Whether the DE conducted against 'he work- man is just and proper?

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

3. Whether the imposition of punishment of dismissal from srvvice is just and proper?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment w^h back wages?

5. RtJirjf ami tosh?

6907 8. Issues Nos 1&2 :

w c i k r c p t . y. he i ret cniit'id t c H cl wa^s.This issue is answered accordingly.

Tt has been held by this tribunal on 21-7-99 that

11. Issue No. 5:

the DE conducted against the workman is just and proper. In view of this finding it is held that the management is not required to load any further evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the work- man. Both these issues are answered accordingly.

9. Issue No 3 :

On the reasons stated above, it is held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. His absence from duty shall be treated as continuous service for pensionery benefits only. He shall be doemed to be in service during the said period. The teforonce is accordingly answered in favour of the workman and against the management.

12. Copy ol the award be send to the Ministry

of Labour, Government ol India as per rules.

K.M. RAI', Prosiding Officer

New Delhi, the 5th November, 2001

S.0.3217.—In pursuance of Section 17 of thw

Industrial Dispute A.n, 1947 (14 of 19+7), thi Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial. Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai as slkown in the Annexunc in the Industrial Dispute b tween thr -raptcye-rs in relation to the management.of Kami- Vysya Bank and thevc workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 2-11-2001.

[No, L-12OI2/137/95-lR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRA.L GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI.

Friday, the 14th September, 2001

Present : K. KA.RTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

The workman was chargesheeted by the Bank for not sending 2 bills for collection of money from State Bank of India T"rupati and State Bank of Indor,-. Ahmedabad. For some months, these two bills purchased by the State Bank of Indorc, were not cleared and no communication was received from the said two banks in respect to the collection of the amount mentioned in the bills. On enquiry from State Bank of Indore, the said 2 banks sent a reply that the bills do not appeared to'havc been received by them. There is no specific denial from the said 2 banks that the concerned 2 bills were not received by them. It is just possible that due to postal mistake, the bills could not be received by the Stale Bank of India, Tirupati and State Bank of Indore, Ahmedabad. The reply of the said 2 banks are Ex M-12 and M-13. In view of his reply, it is not possible to hold that they had not received the bills purchased by the State Bank of Indore from M/s Sharda and Co. There is also no evidence to show that the workman had not sent these two bills to the concerned banks and had deliberately withheld the same with ulterior motive. The amount of the bill with interest was immediately deposited by M/s Sharda and Co. to the Slate Bank of Indore the day it was demanded, This very fact goes to show that no loss has been caused to the Bank in any manner. Moreover the bills w\.re handed over io the workman with the permission of the Branch Manager for sending the same through some courrier for early collection* of the amount. For fhis act, no motive can b? atlached. It was done only with an intend to save the increasing iniert-st to be realised by the Bank. In view of all these facts, it becomes amply clear that fhe management has im- posed the disproportionate punishment by dis- missing the workman from seivice w.c.f. 28-11-90. No ulterior motive could be attached to the-con- duct of the workman on the material available on record. Hence, the order of dismissal deserves lo be quashed. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 402/2001?

10. Issue No. 4 :

(Tamil Nadu S

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri S. Kunnan and tho Management of Km in Vy-ya Hank, Chennai).

2. _The averments in the Claim Statement of the BETWEEN

[ Party/Claimant are brily as follows:- - The General Secretary, : T Parly/Claimant Kamr Vysya Bank Employee^ Union, Bangalore.

AND

The General Manager, : II Party/Management

Karur Vysya Bank, Karur. Appearance:

For the Claimant : M/s. D. Hariparanthaman,

and V. Ajoy Khose, Advocates

For the Management : M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

. Advocates

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act," 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute lor adjudication vide • Order No. L-l2012/l37/95-lR(B-L) dated 13-8-96.

This refeience has b;cn made earlier to th; T.imi Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 64/96. When the matte' was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt, of l u l u, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order traiu that this ease 1'iuni that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication, On receipt of lecords from that Tribunal, the case has bjen taken on file- as- I.D. No. 402/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on. either side, infonning them about the transfer ol" this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 22-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tnbunul, the covnsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case furlhei.

When the matter came up before m.: for final hearing on 13-08-2001. upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the documentary evidence lef in on the side of the Management, up .in hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date Tor consideration, this Tiibunal has passed ihe fol- lowing:—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the abjve order of reference by the Central Govt, for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal is as follows;—-

The Gencial Secretary, Karur Vysya Bank Fmployees Union as 1 Puily/Claimant has raised this iiidusliial dispute e pel.:ii g the cuie- ol Sn S. Kannan, workman/employee of II Pany/Ivaiur Vysya Bank. The 1 Party/Claimant (herein after referred to as Petitioner) has stated in the Claim Statement that as per Ihe condition of Reseivc Bank of India, the 11 Party,Management Kau.r Vysya Bank (hereinafter referred to as Re.-pondent) has advanced 40% of loan to the piiority seetoi, wlvch includes agricultural and small scale industries announced fey the Govt. 1RDP is one of such schemes, While providing loan under these schemes, the Respondent instead of paying the entire amount to insist for making fixed deposits from the bjirowcis to ensure their repayment which is against and violative of the scheme. IRDP loans are recommend jd by Ihe Block Development Officers of the Government. The Branch Manager would scrutinise the loan papers of the borrowers forwarded by the Block Develop- ment Officers to the branch. The Central Office on receipt of scrutinized laon papers in respect of the capacity of the Bonowers by the Branch Manager to either sanction or reject the loans. While sanc- tioning the loan, the Central OiTiee would direu the Branch Manager to collect fixed deposit from the loan amount advanced to the bonower as a pre- condition. Tne loan is sanctioned only when the borrower makes fixed deposit from the loan account and only if the subsidy amount is received from the Government. Tno fixed deposit will b; created in the name of the borrower by diverting the amount from the loan amount. 90%, of the agricultural loans are financed by NABARD which collects only 6.5% interest on the advanced loan to the bank. But the Respondent collects more lhan 10% as interest from the borrowers. l/3rd amount of the IRDP loan is subsidised and is borne by NABARD/ Government. 2/3rd amount ot loan is payable by the borrowers. That 2/3rd amoinl will be compul- sorily taken as deposits from the borrowers. The concerned workman Sri S. Kannan was working in Thottiam branch during March, 1987 the Block Development Officer foiwarded certain names for loans under IRDP scheme to that Thottiam branch. Tne loans wore accounted on 31-3-87 due to the yearly accounts closure and was kept in suspense account. As soon as the subsidy was received the loans were disbursed on 27-4-1987 and 28-4-1987 to the parties. The payment will be made directly to the parties, if it is instalment loan such as loan granted for petty shops, grocery, car- pentry works etc. As far as other loans are concerned, the payment will be made to the suppliers, since under those loans the borrowers have to create "Whether the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. in terminating the service-, of Shri S. Kannan w.r.f. 29-07-1991 is justified? It not, to what reliif h; is entitled?" 6909

and misappropriated the losn amount. The Branch Manager was not preceded with any action. The Enquiry Officer commit'ed error in brushing aside the truth. He failed to follow in the domestic enquiry the substantive rules of evidence. There is not even circumstantial evidence available in this case to prove the charges. There is no conclusive or legal evidence to prove the charges, no prejudice is caused to the bank either by monetary loss or other loss. The concerned workman has accounted the credit vouchers for having received miscellaneous charges, general insurance premium and stamp charges. It is with the bank account. Tne appeal of the concerned workman was dismissed without answering his contentions. Hence this Hon'blc TJ ibunal may be pass an award holding that the action of the management is unjustified and direct the Management to reinstate him in service with

continuity of sc vice, back wages and other attendant

benefits.

3. Ths averments in the Counter Statement of the

II Party/Management are briefly as follows:

assets. The concerned workman Sri S. Kannan paid the loan amounts on 27-4-87 ai.d 28-4-87 as directed by the BiaiicL Marager afki deducting 2/3rd portion towards fixed d< posit, geneisl msuiatice stamp paper openses i?rd miscellfrrous expc es as identified by the Branch Maragci f-nd the- . ,ne were recorded in the scioll ard also in tcccu*>i^. The concerned workman was issued & numo da'ed 19-6-87 suspending him from seivice. Lat"r a charge sheet dated 13-7-87 was issued to him. The Divisional Manager atktd ihe P e t u k n, 1o £^c a statement for the prel'minai} irves.'pt ci> cci sis for issuing the charge sheet. The domestic enquiry conducted againsi the concerred workman w^s against ihepiiac pkt-ofnaiuiaijus1.ee, Bipartite Settlement and established mles of procedure of enquiry. Inspite of the request by the defence representative, the loan documents ai d the preli- minary investigation report were not p.oduced in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer ousht to hr.ve directed the Management to produce the relevant documents. The Divisional Manager, who investi- gated the incident deposed in the enquiry as MW1 based on his investigation. But his ''nvestigation report was not produced by the Management. When it is an offence under iPC as alleged, the Management is not ju-tified in proceeding with the departmental enquiry. The Management had not examined in the enquiry those parties who have received the loan amount. When there is a chasge of collision, the Management should have conducted a joint enquiry. The Enquiry Officer allowed the Management to rely on the documents which weie not maiked tiuough proper witnesses and thejtby a opportunity to cross examine those witness with regard to 'hose documents has been denied. The Enquiiy O;in.er cum Discip- linary Authority gave his findings dated 10-4-91 holding all the charges were proved and also picposing a punishment of dismissal without notice. Dui ing the personal hearing ako, the Petitiorer submitted writttn. submissions. Final oidcis dated 21-7-91 was passed confirming the findings and the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice, which is illegal unjust aud arbitraly. There is no evidence to show that whether the concerned woikman deiived ai.y. benefl or any consideration to say that he lias committed fraud

The II Party/Management Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) admits that Jie concerned workman was working as Clerk-cum Cashier in Thottiam Branch in South Arcot District, which is a rural branch with one Manager, one officer, two clerks and one sub-staff. He was dis- missed from service on certain charges of misconduct proved against him and an enquiry was held for that purpose. The charges levelled against the concerned workman were with regard to his complexity in the matter of sanction of irregular loans under the IRDP Scheme. As a cashier, the concerned workman is required to ensure that all the debit vouchers for cash payment are properly receipted by the recipients of cash over a revenue stamp wherever necessary. He is required to handle only cash transactions namely receipts and payments by cash and each transaction should be supported by a valid voucher Only on the basis of duly completed remittance voucher relating to cash transactions, he can make entries in the cashier's scroll. Every entry of remittance for payment in the scroll should be supported by a valid cash voucher evidencing remittance/payment. Any deviation in this regard, indulged in by the Cashier resulting in such payment will be considered as not merely an irregularity but will lead to an inference that he was a party to the fraudulent transaction which had arisen thereon. On 19-5-87 when the Divisional Manager of the Respondent/Bank at Madras visited the Thottiam Branch, he noticed that out of 33 IRDP Loans sanctioned by the Central Office on 31-3-1987 and disbursed to the parties on 27-4-1987 and 28-4-1987 18 loans were closed even by 9-5-87 and this prompted him to probe further. It was found that the loans were sanctioned without 6910' THE CAZ£TT£ OF INfMrV; N0V> 24;-2#Oiy A^ftAfrfeWfANA 3, 1923 fPARr W-Sfic. 3<-iiH

the concerned workman instigated the sub-staff Mr. Prabaharatt to obtain- signature of 6 borroworsi. For these misconducts, the cbarge.sheet dated. 13-7-87 was-issued to the concernedworkma n. He submitted his explanation denying the- charges,. The con- cerned workman was fumithed with list of documents and the¹ list of witnesses, relied on in support of the charges. On the request mado by the concerned workman for production- of six documents, the PresentinjfrjOfliecr agreed to produce two documents and objected to the production of other documents. After hearing the concerned workman and the Presenting, Officer, the Enquiry Officer recorded consensus arrived at with, regard to production of documents. After examining two witnesses for the Management and six witnesses including the concerned workman, the. delinquent, the. Enquiry Officer gave his report on 10-4-1991 holding, that the charges against.the, concerned workman were duly made out. The copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and tho proposed punishment of dismissal .were communi- cated to the ^concerned workman calling upon him to appear for personal hearing. Aftor considering the representation of the concerned workman in the personal hearing, orders were passed on 29-7-91 dismissing the concerned workman from service. The appeal preferred by the concerned workman was dismissed-on 28-14-1991. Tt is valid and justified. The enquiry was fair and prop:r. If for any reasons, this Tribunal co/nes to Lh3 conclusion lh.il.. the enquiry is vitiated, the Respondent may be given an opportunity to lead, evidence on merits on the charges against the concerned workman. The conduct of tho concerned workman has shaken the confidence the Respondent had in him. Therefore, the concerned workman would not be given any relief, much less the relief of reinstatement. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner may be rejected.

A. The point for my consideration is : "Whether the action of. the Management of Karur Vysya Bank.Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri S. Karman w.e.f. 29-7-1991 is justified If not, to whit relief he is entitled?"

691 categories oT employees should discharge their functions. As far as the Cashier is concerned, he is required-to ensure itlrat tall 1 debit vouchers (for cash payments are properly r"ccipted ^by-the rci^picHits of cash over the Revenue stamp wherever -necessary. The cashier is required -to handle only cash trans- actions mainly receipts and payments by cash and each transaction should be supported by. a valid voucher. It is only on the basis of discharged vouchcr./duly completed remittance vouchers relating to cash transactions, he can make entries in tire cashier's scroll. Every entry of remittance or pay- ment in the vcroll should be supported by a valid cash voucher evidencing remittance/payment. Any deviation in this regard indulged in by the cashiers resulting in such payment will be considered as not merely an irregularity but will lead to an inference that he was a party to the fraudulent transaction whioh had arisen thereon. This contention of the Respondent in their Counter Statement with regard to the Cashier of the bank, should discharge his function is not denied or disputed by the Petitioner Union.

branch on 19-5*87. The fi"c< of inspection conducted by the *"id official of the Respondent/Bonk h;;s not beendisputed by the Petitioner Union or the concer- ned workman Hence the charge shea was issued to the ^concerned workman charging with the mis- conduct ~of commission of offences HS'dcfned in the Bipartite Settlement involving moral turpitude and punishable undei the Indian Penal Code, doing-acts ^prejudicial to-the interest of the bank, abatement or instigation of the acts above mentioned The xerox copy of the said- charge-sheet issued to the concerned workman, dated 13-7-87 is Ex. M3. Prior to that, •the concerned workman was issued an order of sus- pension dated 19-.6-S7 by the 'Respondent/Manage- ment The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M2. Book of Instructions Part III Miscellaneous Services, pages 55 to 60 and 99 to 105 has been filed as xeiox copies by the Respondent/Management and it is marked as Ex, M l. Foi the said charge-sheet, the concerned workman has given his reply dated 22-7-87. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M4. In that reply, the concerned workman Sri S. Kannan has denied the charges mentioned in the charge memo Ex. M3. As the explanation submitted by the concerned work- man is not satisfactory and convincing, the Minage- ment had decided to hold the departmental enquiry against the concerned workman on the charges tevclted ngainst him under Ex. M3 for which an inti- mation about the enquiry dated 5-8-87 was issued to the concerned workman as a notice by the Respon- denf/Managenwnt and the xerox copy of the same is •Ex. M5. Subsequently, as 'there was a change of 'Enquiry Officers, notices dated 11-9-87, 26-11-87 and 27-11-87 were issued to the concerned workman and IJrc "xerox eppy o'f the same are Ex. M6 and M7. Then the domestic enquiry was conducted. All the documents pertaining "to the transactions done by the concerned workman as Cashier of the 'Respondent/ "Bank of Thottiam Branch were marked as exhibits on the side of the Management in the domestic en- quiry as Ex. M3 to M47. The xerox copies of the same have been 'marked here as Exhibits by consent of both th&partrcsas Ex. MiO to M53. On the side of the delinquent employee, the concerned workman Sri S. Kannan 93 -documents have been marked as E*. Dl to'W93 in the domestic enquiry which have been marked by consent heTe as Ex. M54 to MT45. On the bide 6f the ^Management, then Divisional Manager, Madras and the then sub-staff of Thottiam branch of the ;Respondent/Bank were examined as Management witnesses. On the side of the delin- quent employee :Sri S. Kannan, apart from himself, five witnesses were examined as defence witnesses. After oon^dering-errtire oTa.1 a id d"cumerttry evi- dence ihe "Enquiry Oflber has gave his findings dated 13-7-87 holding that the charge-sheeted emp- loyee is-guiKy of-afl the charges levcHod against him in the charge-Shetland all the allegations have b "n 5. Jt is further alleged in. the* Counter Statement of the Respondent Ihat-on 19*5-1987 when Xhe Divi- sional -Manager of the-Rjeapondeitf/Battk atJ4adias viarted the Thottiam Branch, he motioed that out of 33 IRDP loans sanctioned'"by tbe-Central .Office on 31-3-87 and disbursed to the patties on 27-4-1987 and 28-4-1987, ISloaas w.ereelosed-ewsnby 9-5K1987 and 'this prompted him to -probe further. It was found that the loans were sanctioned without creation of a"y'asset and -the Joans were^ftll .raised soefo' with a view lo a!aim subsidy. Ihe.loans4.0 the.33.parties were sanctioned and disbursedtby the Branch Manager of the Thottiam Branch -udth.jthc active connivance of the cashier making it evident that .the Btanoh Manager.and the Cashier iiad derived benefit out of the amount of subsidy.along with the parties concer- ned. It is tuirther alleged.that as the Cafihitr the concerned workman was (involved -in the matter of fraudulent a&bursoment of IRDP Joans, to. 33 paities, as he had signed the cash debit voucher* evidencing payment without the signature of ihc recipients. In rospect of 25 transactions where iiired dpposats were created there was no real remittance of cash but tbt Cashier .has chosen to initial the vouchers as -having received tte remittance. He has con esponding'y made wrongful entries in the scroll both with regard to remittances and payments Thus, the Cashier colluded with the Branch Manager and the concerned applicants in the matter of wrongful disbursement of subsidy which he would not have indulged in but for the fact that .he was a'so a beneficiary in those tran- sactions These irregularities wcte found, o u t by the Divisional Manager of the Rcspondenf/Bank at Madras during the course of bis inspection of Thottiwu6912 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : NOV. 24, 2001/.AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART I I- Si,c. 3(ij)] Veeraraphavan and the m ' er ia"icJ l> Hi A i n l- latc Authority have been mniUd htre as Ex. M I .4 to l^withtheccmentoftrefcvivcl'c-i ih Kti1 cm.'

6. In the Claim Statement filu' b> tl c T t l i t x ru Union, it is alleged Hint the d nrgts v\(_re \ci\ v;[ue and not specific and the domestic tnquiiy ccn.di.ctcd against the concerned woil n an was in utici dis- regard of all principles of natuial iustire, Bifniitr Settlement and established IUICS cf piccccue of enquiry. It is fuither contended that non-production of basic report is a total denial of opportunity to the Petitioner to give his explanation and to defend him in the enquiry. Tn the Counter Statement itself, it is clearly stated that as far as the investigation report is concerned, it dealt with various other matters per- taining to Thottiam Branch and they ;ue all of con- fidential in nature and since the investigating official himself was examined as witness to speak about the transaction, there was no need to produce investiga- tion report, ,Thc perusal of the enquiry proceedings clearly show that the documents agreed to be pro- duced by the Management were made available to the concerned workman and they were also filed in the enquiry and that the concerned workman had agreed to examine the witnesses Further, it is seen from the enquiry proceedings that the divisional Manager who has conducted the investigation has been examined as first witness for the Management and another sub-staff of the bank was also examined as second witness in support of the charge. The concerned workman also examined five of the bor- rowers besides examined himself as a witness. Further, from the perusal of enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer's report it is seen that the concerned workman as delinquent employee who was facing the charges levelled against him in the domestic enquiry was j?iveii sufficient opportunity to effectively defend himself in the enquiry. A perusal cf the entire records would show that the domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was not in utter disregard of all principles of natural justice, Bipartite Settlement and established rules of procedures of enquiry. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management against the concerned employee is not fair and proper and against the principles of natural justice,

7 Tt is seen from the l coords available that in the domestic enquiry the Rcspondcnt/Man'ige- ment had not relied upon the investigation repon of +he Divisional Managei, who conducted the inspector df Thotthim branch of the Respondent/ Bank but he wai examined as a Management witness 1o spe"k about this investigation As it is held in a case icported as 1999 LLJ 175 U. P SI ATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPO- RATFON & OTHERS AND MUSAIRAM held as proved I lie xeiox copy of tlic Enquhy Officer's finding is Ex. M146, He has al

6913 AND OTHERS, "the documents neither relevant to the chaige nor relied upon by the authorities and thu non-suppjy of such document would not vitiate the proceeding of the domestic ccqiiuy". This dee^'on of 'he Supreme Court in the pbove ease is squarely app'icjblc to the facts of th'h cube. The non-furnishing of the inves)1

8 Fioir, the perusal of tlic cut'ie record^ inclusive of the enquiry ptoceedings, the Enquiiy Officer's report show that there VW.TO materials available by way of unimpeachable documentary evidence before the Enqauiry Officei loin him to come to the conclusion tha¹ (lie charges JeveHed a{.anisi the concerned woiknian have been pioved So, th.^ cannot be considered ui a case of no evidence and the findings given by the Enqyry Officer in his report arc pi'iu-ise In another case reported as ATR 1988 SC 117 CHANDRAMA THEWAR1 Vs UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court has he'd that "non-supply of copy of document which is not rel'ed hy the Enquiry Officer to suppoit thu charges does not amount to violation of principles of natuial justice. No prejudice was caused to the delinquent in cioss oxamine the Management witness who has spoken about his investigation in icspect of the miv conducts committed by the concerned workman as Cashier ol the Thottiam blanch ol the Respondent/Bank. As it is hold in a cpse reported as 1988 1 LTJ 628 Supreme Court, SECRETARY TO GOVT HOML DCFARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs. SRI VAIGUNDANATHAN, "the Tribunal cannot intufete with the findings of the hnquiry Officer un'ess the findings are peiverse and not supported by any evidence." So, under such circumstances, this Tribunal cannot a'so intcrfeie with the findings of the Enquiry Officer under Ex M 146.

the borrowcis towards the IRDP loans advanced to them wi hru' actually made any remittance. As a cashier he lias initialled in the remittance ch illan as though amounts have been remitted undei those chdllans by the concerned borrowers and also made entries in the cash, remittance scroll, which is only a manipulation of records by false entries and I hat has been done only by him with an ulterior motive of availing unlawful gain along with others concerned. From the records, it is .icen tint the concerned workman Sri. S. Kannan was lespon.iblo for taking signature of the borrowers in th" vouchers which he failed to do. Further it is seen from the records that the Divisional Manager visits the Branch on 19-5-87 all loan:, were closed which made him to suspect those transactions. In addition to the evidence of the said Divisional Manager, the then sub-sLifl of the branch also gave evidence before the Enquiry Officer in support of the charges levelled against the concerned workman. In the enquiry repoit, the Enquiry Officer has elaborately dealt with the exhibits to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the concerned workman have been proved. The charge sheeted employee while giving his reply to the charge sheet has not stated at the earliest point of time that the charges were vague,. The Enquiry Officer while giving his findings has dealt with all the objections' raised by the defence and has given hi- final order. From the available evidence , it is seen that the concerned employee Sri S. Kannan in collusion with the Branch Manager and the IRDP loan borrowers has availed the subsidy entrusted by the Government towards the IDRP loan to the bank as custodian, which in turn affects the interest of the Bank, as per the Bipartite Settlement. Apart fro'i:, it amounts to gross dereliction of duty of the concerned workman, it had resulted in fraudulent with- drawal of subsidy. A, it is contended by the Respondent/Management in the Counter itself, the conduct of the eo'icjrned workman has shaken the confidence the Respondent had in him and therefore, the concerned workman should not be given any relief, muchless the relief of reinstatement. From all these materials avail- able in this case, it can be held that the action of the Management Karur Vysya Bank in termi- nating the services of Sri S. Kannan w.e.f. 29-7-91 is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is' answered accordingly.

9. There arc sufficient evidence available in this case which were relied upon by the manage- ment before the Enquiry Officer to hold that the concerned workman as Cashier ol the Thottiam Branch of the Respondent/Bank has violated the instructions mentioned in the Book ol Instruction Fx. M I in dealing vvth the IRDP scheme loans in i expect of 33 brrrowcis. In addition to that ther: me evidence to show that he had made cntres in the documents of the

10. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the action of the Management ol" Karur Vyya Bank Ltd. Tn terminating the services of Sri S, Kannan w.e,f. 29-7-91 is justified.

ban): as though remiit.ince have been made by

3497 GI/2001—86914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hence, the concerned workman is nol entitled to any relief No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the of en court on this day the 14th September, 2001.)

K. KARTH1KFYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : On either side : None Documents Marked : For I Party/Claimant : Kl For the Tf Party/Managerr^nt :— Ex.No. Date Description

Ml Nil Xciox copy of Book Instruc- tions Part 111 "Misc. Services page 55-60 and 99-105.

M2 19-06-87 Xerox copy of order of suspen-

sion issued to Petitioner.

M3 13-07-87 Xerox copy of t|v; charge sheet

issued to the Petitioner.

M4 22-07-87 Xmix ccpy of Ihc reply of Peti-

tioner to the Charge sheet.

M5 05-08-87 Xerox copy of the klter of Res- pondent/Bank To the Petitio- ner icgarding intimation c(' en- quiry.

Mb 11-09-87 Xercx a py of ire ccrnmuni- cation about change of Fnquiry Officer and notice in this regard.

M7 26-11-87 Xoux copy of the commnica- 27-11-87 lion i.bout change of Fnquiiy Officer and notice in 1his repard.

M8 13-01-88 Xeiox copy of the notice of first

sitting 'if enquiry.

M9 23-01-88 29-02-88 01-03-88 24-03-88

26-05-88 X u o\ copy of the enquiry pro- 04-06-88 & cecdings 10-06 88

M10 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash,'tran.sf.v

scroll of Thottiyam Branch.

M11 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 6000/- In ra^pjci of HPL(M) 3/87 ]V112 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the ctf-li debit vou-

eher for Rs. 6000/-

Ii\ r.bpjct of HPL(M) 4/87 Ml3 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- In re^xci of HPL(M) 8/87.

M14 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- In respect of HP1.(M) y/87 M15 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- Tn respect of HPL(M) 10/87 M16 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for R^. 3000/- for the payment mad. to K. Pacha muthu.

M17 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- In r e p xn of HPL(Cycle) 2/87.

M18 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the ca-.li debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/-

In respect of HPL(Cyjle) 3/87.

M19 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- In respect of HPL(Cycle) 6/87 M20 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- In respect of HPL(Cycle) 7/87 M21 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- In respec¹ or HPLCCycle) 8/87.

M22 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 6000/- In rc-peci of HPL(Cart) 4/87.

M23 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- In respect of JL 2/87.

M24 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- ln respect of IL 3/87.

M25 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/-

Tn respect of IE 5/87.

M26 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit bou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- In respect of IL 6/87.

M27 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 6000/- In respec or HPL(M) 2/87.

M28 22-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- In respect of HPE (M) 5/87.

M29 28-04-97 Xerox copy if the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- In respect of HTL(M) 6/87.

M30 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- In respect of HPL(M) 7/87.

M31 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- In respect of HPL(M) 11/87.

M32 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 5500/- Ic respect of HPL(M) 12/87.

M33 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit voucher for Rs. 5500/- In respect of HPL(M) 14,67.

M34 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit

voucher for Rs. 3000/- ln respect of HP (Cycle) 4/87.

M35 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit

voucher for Rs. 3000/- In respect of HpL(Cyole) 5/87.

M36 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/-

In respect of HPL(Cycle) 9/87.

M37 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou- cher for Rs, 900/- In respect of HPL(Cart)l/87.

M38 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou- cher for Rs. 7000/- Ja respect of HPL(Cart)2/87.

M39 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou- cher for Rs. 7000/- Tn respect of HPL 3/87.

M40 28-04-97 Xerox copy of cash debit vou- cher for Rs. 9000/- In respect of IL 1/87.

M41 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou-

cher for Rs. 9000/- In respect of IL2/87.

M42 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash debit vou- cher for Rs. 4500/- Jn respect of IL 4/87.

M43 28-04-97 Xerox copy of the cash-debit vou-

cher for Rs. 3000/- Jn respect of IL 7/87.

M44 ] 7-06-87 Xerox copy of the statement from proprietor of Usha Enterprises to Divisional Manager. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Chennai. M45 17-06-87 Xerox copy of the statement from

proprietor of Lingam Cycle Mart to Divisional Manager.

Karur Vysya Bank Lid. Chennai. M46 17-06-87 Xerox oopy of the statement from propriotor of Saravana Electro- nics to Divisional Manager. Karur Vysya Bank Lid. Chennai.

6915 M47 16-06-87 Xerox ccpy or the state mint of C. Prabhakar, Sub-staff, Thottiyam Branch to Divisional Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Chennai.

M48 Nil Xerox copy of the page 104 of book of instructions part 111 Misc. Services—Containing accounting procedures.

M49 29-09-87 Xerox copy of the credit slip for

HPL (cycle) 7/87

M50 Nil Xerox copy of the specimen of

credit slip with Counterfoil.

M51 Nil Xerox copy of the specimen of

cash debit voucher.

M52 Nil Xerox copy of the page 100 of book of Instructions part III Misc. Services—Containing accounting procedures.

M53 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash debit

voucher in JML Agri 53/87 M54 17-06-87 Xerox copy of the letter of Divisional Manager Issued to Petitioner

M55 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Mr. M. Veerasamy foi Rs. 2100/- M56 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri T. Subramanain for Rs. 2100/-.

M57 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the TD credit Challan in the name of Smt. Annapoorani for Rs. 2100/-.

M58 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Cballan in the name of Mr. P. SUvaraj for Rs. 2000/-.

M59 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in Hie name of Sri N. Arumugam for Rs. 2100/-.

M60 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the PD credit Challan in the name of Sri S. Kalliyan for Rs. 3700/-.

M61 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Mr. M. Sadayan for Rs. 4100/-.

M62 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit

Challan in the name of Smt, Annapoorani for Rs. 2100/-,69J6 THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : NOV. 24, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [P^RT II -SEC. 3(it)] M63 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan inr the name of Smt. Marimutbammal for Rs. 4100/-.

M64 31-03-87 XcroK copy of the FD credit Chalian in the name of Smt. Kaliyamma) for Rs. 3700/-.

M65 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Mr. P. Jagannathan for Rs. 37/00/-.

M66 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri T. Ramani for Rs. 2000/-.

M67 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit

Challan in the name of Sri A. Sanniyasi for Rs. 4000/-.

M68 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri M. Neelan for Rs. 2100/-.

M69 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the ID credit Challun in the name of Sri R. Kannan for Rs. 4000/-.

M70 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri P. Murugesan for Rs. 4100/-.

M71 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Chalkm in the name of Sri P. Devaraj for Rs. 4000/-.

M72 28-04-87 xeiox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri P. Kannusamy Acliari for Rs. 2100/-.

M73 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in Hie name of the Sri P. Anbalagan for Rs. 7500/-.

M74 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the bD credit Challan in the name of Sri A. Janakar for Rs. 4400/-.

M75 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Smt. K. Dhanam for Rs. 2400/-.

M76 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri M. Rdju for Rs. 2100/-.

M77 31-03-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of the Sri M. Kulandaivelu for Rs. 4100/-.

M78 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri Pitchamuthu for Rs. 4000/-.

M79 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the FD credit Challan in the name of Sri A. Arunachalam for Rs. 4000/-.

M80 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of IL 2/87.

MSI 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of lL 3/87.

M82 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs, 25/-

in lespect of lL 5/87.

M83 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of IL 6/987.

M84 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of HPL (C>cle) 1/87.

M85 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of HPL (Cycle) 2/87.

M86 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

m respect of HPL (Cjclc) 3/87.

M87 27-04.87 Xerocx opy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of HPL (Cycle) 6/87.

M88 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (Cycle) 7/87.

M89 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

m respect of HPL (Cycle) 8/87.

M90 27-04-87 Xeroc copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 3/87.

M9I 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 4/87.

M92 .27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 8/87.

M93 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs- 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 9/87.

M94 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. „?/- Jn respect of HPL (M) 10,87.

M95 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash audit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of H?L (Cart) 4/87.

M96 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3/- in respect of HPL (Cycle) 1/87.

M97 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash ucdit

voucher for Rs. 3/- in respect of HPL (Cycle) 2/87.

M98 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rv 3/- in respect of 11PL (Cycle) 8/87- M99 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3/- in respect oT HPL (Cjik) 3,87.

M100 27-04-87 Xeiox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3/- in icspeet of HpL (Cycle) 6/87.

M101 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3/- m respect of HPL (C}<:\£) 6/87 M102 27-04-87 Xeiox eopy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3'- in respect of HPL (Cycle) 8/87.

M103 27-04-87 Xerox cop\ of the cash ciedit

voucher for Rs. 2.50 in respect or IlpL (M) 3/87, M104 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 2,50 in respect of II PL (M) V. Maiinuithammal.

M105 27-04-87 Xeio\ copy of the cash ciedit

voucher for Rs. 2.40 in respect of HPL (M) 8/87.

M106 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 2.50 in respect of HPL (M) 9/87, M1U7 27-04-87 Xerox: copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs, .'.50 in respect of HPL (M) 10/87.

6917 1VT108 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash crcdi

voucher for Rs. 2.50 in respect of HPL (Cart) 4/X7.

MI09 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 250/- in respect of HPL (Cait) 4/87.

Ml 10 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (Cycle) 4/87.

M i ll 27-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

\oucher for Rs. 25/- m respect of HPL (Cycle) 5/87.

Ml 12 28-04 87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (Cycle) 9/87. -Ml 13 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (Ty. Cart) 1/87.

Ml 14 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs, 25/- in respect o,f HPL (Carl) 2/87.

Ml 15 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL ( C a r) 3/87.

Ml 16 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 50/- m respect of TL1/87 & 2/87.

Ml 17 28-04-81 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/-

in respect of IL/4/87.

Ml 18 28-04-87 Xeiox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of 1L 7/87.

Ml 19 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash ciedit

voucher for Rs. 25/- ' in respect of IL 2/87.

M|20 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL 5/87.

Ml21 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 6/87.

M122 28-0-1-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 7/87.

Ml23 20-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs, 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 11/87.

MI24 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- in respect of HPL (M) 12/87.

Ml25 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 25/- In respect of HPL (M) 13/87.

MI26 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3/- Tn respect of 1L 7/87.

M127 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 11/- Tn respect of TL 1/87 & 2/87.

Ml28 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 2.50 In respect of HPL (M) :/87.

Ml29 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 2.50 Jn respect of HPL (M) 11/87.

Ml30 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 5.50 In respect of HPL (M) 5/87.

Ml 31 28-04-87 Xerox copy cf the cash a edit

voucher for Rs. 5.50 In respect of HPL (M) 11/87.

Ml 32 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash ciedit

voucher for Rs. 2.50 In respect of HPL A. Jawahar.

Ml33 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

vcucher for Rs. 2.50 In respect of HPL (M) 13/87.

Ml 34 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credi

voucher for Rs.3/- In respect of HPL (Cycle) 5/87.

M135 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 6/- In respect of HPL 5/87.

Ml36 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 3/- Tn respect of HPL (cycle) 9/87.

Ml37 x8-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 5.50

In respect of HPL (Cart) 2/87.

Ml38 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 5.50 In respect of HPL (Cart) 3/87.

M139 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 2.50 In respect of HPL(M) 6/87.

M140 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 5.50 In respect of HPL (Cart) P. Panda;

Ml41 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 300/- In respLU . . PL (Cart) 1/87.

M142 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the aish credit

voucher for Rs, 100/- In respect of HPL (Curl) 4/87.

M143 28-04-87 Xerox copy of the cash credit

voucher for Rs. 100/- In respect of HPL (Cart) 3/87.

Ml44 Nil Xerox copy of the Book of Ins- tructions Part-I II misc. Services- page57&58.

M145 Nil Xerox copy of the Book of Ins- tructions Part-I Advances Page 1 & 2.

M146 10-04-91 Xerox copy of the report of En- quiry Officer Ml47 10-04-91 Xerox copy of the notice from Enquiry Officer Regarding proposed punishment.

MI48 24-04-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Enquiry Officer Adjouring the the proposed punishment at the Request of the Petitioner.

M149 29-07-91 Xerox copy of (he final order passed by the Enquiry Officer.

Ml50 29-07-91 Xerox copy of the administra-

tive order issued lo Petitioner enclosing a copy of approval Application.

Ml 51 09-10-91 Xerox copy of the appeal pre-

ferred by Petitioner

M152 28-11-91 Xerox eopy of the order passed

by Appellate Authority.

Ml 53 22-07-93 Xerox copy of the order of In- dustrial Tribunal on approval application.

Ml 54 13-07-87 X^rox copy of the charge sheet issued to the then Manager Mr. R Venugopalan, Thottiyam b;an.ch Ml55 12-08-87 Xerox eopy of the explanation given by the then Manager Mr. R. Venugopalan.

Ml 56 10-04-91 Xerox copy of the report of En- quiry Officer in The enquiry initiated against R. Venugopalan.

M157 09-10-91 Xerox copy of final order passed in the Enquiry against R. Venu- goplan, then Manager,

Ml58 13-07-87 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Mr. P.A. Vecraraghavan, Subsequent Manager of Thotti- yam branch- MJ59 11-0K-K7 Xerox copy of llic a ply of Mr. JJ.A. Vecraraghavan, Suhsequcnt Manager of Thottiyam branch.

Ml60 13-04-89 Xerox copy of the report of Fu- quiiy Ofiiccr in 'he enquiry inti- uted against P.A. Veeraragluwan M161 28-06-89 Xerox copy of the final order passed by the Dibciplinaiy Autho- rity in the enquiry against P.A- Veeraraghuvan subsqucnt Mana- ger of Thottiyam b/anch.

Ml62 1]-08-89 Xerox copy of the appeal pre- ferred by P.A. Vecraraghavan, subsequent Manager of Thotti- yam. branch

M163 01-11-89 Xerox copy of the order of App-

pellate Authority on the appeal prefenxd bv Sri P.A. Veerara- ghavan, subsequent, Manager of Thottiyam bianch proposing to enhance the punishment and call- ing for his representation.

Ml64 16-06-90 Zerox copy of the order, of Ap- pellate Authority on the appeal preferred by Shri P.A. Veerara- geavan subsequent Manager of Thottiyam branch.

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 S.O. 3218.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hcrehy publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Cenral Government on 29-10-2001.

[No. L-120l2|193|92-TR(B-IT)] C. GANGADTTARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGFUR

6919 F'RESENT:

. . ..

Shri B. G, Saxcna, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. • CGIT : 29|W

Bank of India

A NP

Shri Vinayak U. Joshi.

AWARD

The Central Govremnent Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1047 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L~ 12012|193|92|IR (B-TT) dated : 30-10-92 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Zonal Manager, Nagpur in re- fusing to sanction the Spl. Leave to Shri Vinayak U. Joshi, Central Executive: Com- mittee member of National Organisation of Bank Workers and Jt. Secretary of Bank of India Workers' Organisation NOBW, Nagpur is justified? If not, to v hat relief is the workman entitled ?"

The workman Vinayak U. Joshi has submitted Statement of Claim that he was elected the Central Executive Member of the National Organisation of Bank Workers from 8-2-90. Under Clause 13.39 of first by-partite settlement of 1966, he is entitled to Special Leave from Feb, 1990. Management. Bank of India has refused to grant him the aforesaid faci- lity. Resultantly all such leave has been either debited to personal Leave of the workman or has been treated as Leave as Loss of Pay.

In the Written Statement filed by the management of Bank of India through it's Zonal Manager S, V. Patel, the management denied that Vinayak U. Joshi is Central Executive Member of National Organisa- tion Bank Workers, which is a Federation of the regis- tered Trade Union of Bank Employees affiliated¹ to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. The management denied that he was elected as Central Executive Committee member of National Organisation of Bank Workers in the conference held on f!-2-Q0. It is also men- tioned that the management had also not received any request either from National Organisation of Bank Workers which is a Central Organisation or Vidarbha Ba|nk Employees Federation which is a regional orga- nisation for grant of such a special leave to Vinavak Joshi for attending anv conference or meeting. Vinavak Joshi onlv informed the bank that he pfrfentfed thf meetines and conferences of his union. Thp workman concerned must lie duly notified bv fto TnHhn Rank Association. The list supniieri bv Tndinn Bink Asso- ciation for thf nnrpocps nf Clause 11 10 rjnee not contain trt 69-0 THE GAZLT1E OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 24, AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART H—SFC. 3 ( H )]

Officer of the bank was recotded on 20-9-2000. The parties also submitted documents.

In cross examination Vinayak Joshi stated that ne has not filed any document to show that he is entitled to Special Leave ot 17 days tor each year from 1992. It is suggested to this witness by the management thai the workman is not entitled f o r P d a j -, Special L(.a\e from 1992 to 1997. The witness also admitted in cross examination that vide Letter No. PD|CTR|76l H(a)|1639 dated : 19-1-V8, special facility has been provided to the officer bearer and Central Committee member of National Gnvnisdtioi, ol" Bank Workers in terms of Clause 13.39 of the by-partite Settle- ment dated 19-10-66. Th's facPity has been extended w.e.f. 1-10-97. It is therefore clear that the work- man Vinayak loshi is entitled Snnccial Lea\e Facil;t\ we.f. 1-10-97.

Another witness Ashokji Bhutrod has stated that it is true that from 1983 to 2nd September, 1997 National Organisation of workers was not a party in the by-partite settlement. I. is therefore clear that up*o v:p*cmbcr, 1997 the v orkman was not entitled to the fae'lity of 17 days Sricial Leave.

Shri P. M. Pandit the witness of the management stated that he is in the service of Bank of India since 1972. He also stated that Letter No : FD|CIR|76| H(a)|1639 dated 19-1-08 has been filed by the management. This document is Exhibit W-2. Accor- ding to this letter the facility for Special Leave has been provided to the Central Committee Member of National Organisation of Bank Workers under Clause 13.39 of by-partite settlement w e f. 1-10-97.

Thus from the above evidence and the doex'ments referred to above Vina\ak loshi is entitled to Special Leave under Clause 13.39 of bv-partite settlement w.e.f. 1-10-97.

Letter No : NEB!FRS'ARM|476 dated 7-7-99 also shows that Vinayak Joshi has been granted Special Leave from 1-10-97 \n terms of Clause 13.39 of by- partite settlement dated 19-6-66. In view of the facts and evidence 'li'-cusscd fbo\c the workman Vinayak U. Joshi is entitled to Special! Leave a- Central Execu- tive Committee member of National Organisation of Bank Workers and Joint Secretary, Brink of India Workers Oreanisation from 1-10-97.

ORDER

The action of the management of T?anl of India.

Zonal Manacer. N a w ir in refusing to sanction the Soecial Leave to Shri Vi'nr/ak II Jo"hi. Centra' Executive Committee Mpnil""¹¹' of National Oi^nn^- sation of Bank Workers and Joint Secr^tnr" of RanV of Tidii Workers' Orm^;—tin" CNO^W) N-^nnr from Febmnrv 10^0 'o 3f!lh ^orrtember 1Q97 v -s iustifier! Thp w^HcnPn i" pn+Iiiorl t-i ^n ~ii] I r

The reference is disTi^^t¹ of itcord;n"b⁷

Dntc • 15 10-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Preside? Offr-r New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 S.O. 3219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Central Government hereby pub- Jishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II Mumbai as shown in the Aiine\ure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Central Bank of india and their work- men, which wac received by the Central Go—mrvn' on 2" i 0-200!.

[ N\ L-12^12 306'1998-1 R(B-TI)] C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BF^ORF, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II. MUMBAI

PRESENT

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer Referen-e No. CGIT-2'124 of 1999 Employers in reiotion to the Management of Central Bank of Tndia.

Tho Reirion⁰! Manager, Centrr-i Ttink of Tndia. Goa Rcpionrl Office, Manscarcnh°.s Building, Aniao de Noronha Road. Ponaji. Goa-403001.

AND

Their Workmen

Sh. T^-crm\ Painikant Chodankur- H. No. n ^ 3, Bandore, Po"t Betul. Talnka S?Vpta. Goa.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer.—Mr. D.S.N. Alornc kar Representative.

For the Workmen.--Mr. M. B, Anchan, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated 29th September. 2001

A W A RD

The Government of India. Ministry ot Labour, by its Order No. L-12012 306 9*8lIR ( B I D. dtd. 12-05-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( I) and si'b-section 2 ( A) of Section 10 ot the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have re- ferred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Goa in terminating the services of Sh. Deepak Rajinikant Chodankar, Ex-Sub-Staft" of Cuncolim Branch of Central Bank of India w.e.f. 23-11-97 is legal and notified ? If not, what relief the workman is en- titled t o ?"

6921 to continue in the bank. It is conteded since he has not come with c^an hands he is not entitled to any reliefs as per the Principles ot Natural Justice. He was engaged purely on casual basis when the regularly appointed sub-staft was on Ieav<\ and therefore in no case he was continuously engaged to work and therefore he is not entitled for rppoiatment in the bank. It is contended as per banks policy, no Bivnch Manager is empowered to employ any person as casual worker for more tlnn 59 davs i i a year. It is contended after discontinuation of Mr. Chodankar, nobody was recruited and sine" he practised fraud on the bank, cannot be absorbed in the service. Consequently management prayed to dismiss the claim of Chodankar. By way of Re- joinder (Exhibit-QN Chodankar reiterated the recita's in the Stat- ment of Claim ?rd denied th: con+entioT= in the Written Statement.

6 On b - ^ r ' ^j +he counsel and perusing the record ?r ? "-v,r>u -n cj the Written Sub- miscinno. T r~ccr ^ M" ^ndin^s on the follow- ing ]tci]Ac frr *h" i*eacr>p(: rirntioned below : — Issues Findings 2. Deepak Rajnikant Chodankar filed State- ment of Claim (Exhibit-5). He pleaded that he was emp'oyed as a sub staff in the Cou ncoHm Branch of Central Bank of India. He worked more than 240 days from 10-3-97 to 22-11-97 in different names. since he was not flowed to work i" one name Tt k con- tended that when be recmec-ted for his regu- WKifion in service- he was terminated bv th"> order of Regional M a m s e r, Goa dtd. 2^-11-07. He was not given notice pay r of th^ "-e⁴rerc'imfvr)+ comners^tion Tt is con- t^ irird br w"= advised bv the Branch Manager to wort in different namps 1o avoid continuous service for more than 59 divs ^n a stretch. He w*- workig iffiinst the rowuiar vacancy. Though he ws working in different n^mes th~ cfnff ^ -o Tcnown to him It i1 pi ->iv thp.n 90 davs h^ was entitled to reunion option in service. His tei*n-nriofion af p 'r^'ire is i11e"i1 ind +h^rpfore h^ Proved •i •*->'p":f-"tpp->r'>*it \v "ervi^e ™/itp_ full b^ck wages.

REASONS

7. Admittedly Shri Chodankar worked as a sub-staff in Central Bank ol' India, Cuncolim Branch, for more than 240 days from 10-3-97 to 22-11-97 as a casual labour. Ac- cording to Chodankar as per the advise of the Branch Manager, Cuncolim Branch he worked as above in different names to avoid continuous services of more than 59 days in stretch. The bank officer Mr. Alornckar, in his affidavit, para 6, pointed out as to how Mr. Chodankar vorked as a sub-staff in three names viz.

Rupesh Chodankar; Ajit Chodankar; Nitin Zuvarkar and that he received wages under vouchers in those names. According to him, Chodankar thereby in collusion with the em- ployee of the bank deceived the bank, work- ing in fictitious names and that this approach of Mr. Chodankar, is absolutely a curse and not a boon in any way to the healthy growth of the banking institution and he is required to be away from banking institution where public money is involved and therefore the banks action is totally justified.

8. As stated above Mr. Chodankar ad- mittedly worked more than 240 davs during the calendar year preceding his termina- tion dtd. 23-11-97. The Learned Counsel for Chodankar, inviting attention of this tri- bunal to the definition of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act submits that, since he continuously worked he cannot h^ r"irmch- ed without notice pay and retrenchment com- pensation and that nothing on record to show that the bank complied with the same, and therefore the bank's action of bis trrmirririon is illegal. Their T ordships in Znkir Hussain V. Eneinrer-in-Chirf, Irrigation Deptt. AIR 190? L \B TC R36 observed :

"Merely because an employee has work- ed for two or three years on daily wages basis he can not claim re- gularisation of service as a matter of right Regularisation cannot be made as 'rule of thumb' on the basis of completion of certain years of service of such an employee. It all depends on various facts, and it is for the employer to decide as to whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ser- vices of those employees who were appointed on ad hocldaily wages bnsis should be regularised." 9. Chodankar candidly admitted that he worked in the bank on casual basis in different names. However, according to him he so worked on the advise of Manager, Mr. A. R. Salgaonkar. He did not venture to examine Salgaonkar to throw light in the matter. The Learned Counsel Shri. Anchan for Chodankar submits that bank initiated departmental in- quiry against Branch Manager, Salgaonkar itself indicates that he was at fault and not Mr. Chodankar. Chodankar cannot digest his misdeed throwing mud on the others. He had gone to the extent of receiving wages under voucher in three names. Assuming for a moment, Salgaonkar advised him to do so but still it was for Chodankar to work as per his conscience. Chodankar would not have certainly jumped in the dry well on the advise of Manager, and considering the matter from this point of view, hardly lie in the mouth of Chodankar that he did so on the advise of Salgaonkar. This is clearly indicative to shown that Chodankar was not with clean hands and that equity also does not help to such persons. Chodankar working in fic'itious names, certainly deceived the bank and there- fore considering the matter from this point of view action of the management can certainly said to be proper and justified.

10. A lame execuse has been taken by Shri Chodankar to cover his misdeed, that, mana- ber is not allowed to engage a casual worker for more than 59 days in a year therefore for smooth working of the bank. Manager, ad- iusred by engaging him in different names. This cannot said to be an adjustment when onenly fraud is played on the public financial institution- of which faith is the foundation.

11. From the evidence it is clear that Chodankar worked for more thnn 240 days as contemplated under section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, However in view of the discussion and in the ]i

ORDER

The action of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of Tndh- Go.n in ter- minating the services of Shri Divmk Rajnikant Chodankar, Ex-Sub-Staff of Cuncolhn Branch of Central Bank of Tndia w.e.f. 23-11-97 is just- Ic^al and proper.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001 S.O. 3220.—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, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-10-2001.

[No. L-12012 280/I999-IR(B-IIJ C. GANGADMARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer,

Reference No. CGlT/46/2000

Bank of India

AND

Kumar Vijaya Shainraj Meshiam

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, J947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No L-12012/280/99-IRCB-II), dated 23-2-2(K)0 on the following schedule :—

SCHEDUl.Ii

"Whether the action of management of Bank of India, Nagpur in terminating the services of Kumari Vijaya D/o Shamrno Meshram W.e.f, 1-7-1999 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the said workman is emitted to and from what date ?"

6923 The workman Kumari Vijaya S. Meshram has submitted statement of claim, that she was in employ- ment of Bank; of India from 9-1-96 and was perform- ing the duties of general nature which are peitormed by the peon. Her service was terminated on 1-7-99, She has mentioned that >hc was sweeping the office premises when permanent peon was on leave. She was attending the bank from 7.30 A.M. for filling the water as Corporation water was available at 7.30 A.M. She was being paid Rs. 100 as Her salary on the last day of the each month. For additional work of sweep- ing she was paid Rs. 60 per day of actual working. Her service has not been regulniscd. She claimed re- instatement with full back wa'ges.

The management in their Written Statement has mentioned that she was engaged for half an hour only during the working days of the branch of the bank for fetching water. She was being paid Rs. 1000 per month. She w*as not appointed by the bank for any regular job. She was not paid any bonus and Provi- dent Fund was also not deducted. As she was doing the work of fetching the water for thirty minutes every day she was not the employee of the bank and cannot claim regularisation of her service.

The workman Kumari Vijaya filed affidavit in this Court on 26-6-2000 in English. She had signed the above affidavits in Hindi. In the affidavit it is men • tioned that the contents of the affidavits have been explained by the counsel. On 27-9-2000 when the wit ness Kumari Vijaya was called for cross examination she did not prefer to stand cross examination. The counsel for the workman represented that the work, man can not answer the question in Hindi or in Eng- lish. She knows only Marathi. The workman did not produce any other witness. From the side 'of the management the affidavit of Waman S/o Hari Kohad was filed on 26-12-2000. He has mentioned that he was working as Asstt. Manager in Bank of India, Rana Pratap Nagar Branch, Nagpur, from Decem- ber, 1998 to June, 1999. Kumaii Vijaya was not ap- pointed in the aforesaid branch of Bank (if India on 9-1-96. She has submitted false statement of claim. Kumari Vijaya Meshram was engaged to letch water from the tap in the morning hours and to fill the same into containers kept in the branch. She only worked from 7.30 A.M. to 8,30 A.M. She was being paid Rs. 100 per month for this work. Another affi- davit of Vilas Vasant Diwase was filed by the man- agement on 8-8-2000. He also s+ated that Kumari Vijaya was working for onl> 30 minutes for fetching water from the tao in the morning hours and was paid Rs. 100 per month. She was not performing the duty of Peon.

Kumari Vijaya submitted a Counter Affidavit on 61-1-2001. In this affidavit she has mentioned thai she was appointed on vaccant pos(. She also admiited that she was doing the work of filling the water in the containers of bank.

The parties have also submitted their Written Argu- ments. I have considered the entire evidence on re- cord and the arguments filed by the parties.

It is evident from affidavits filed bv thj parties ihal Kumari Vijaya was doinp the work of filling the water in the containers of the bank. In the statement of6924 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : NOV. 24, 1001 AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3U01 claim as w dl Kuniari Vijaya elated that she w a s g ; t- Ung Rs. 100 per month on thi. luA Jay uf each monih. It is therefoic clear that neither she was working as a Peon in the bank nor she was drawing the salary from the bank as sub-staff or Peon. No letter of ap- pointment has been filed by Kuniari Vijaya in the Court.

In. view of the above facts there is r.u document on the file to show that Kumari Vijaya WJS appointed by the bank as a Peon or as a Class-IV employee. She wps getting Rs. 100 per month from lihe bank for fetching water and filling it in the containers of the bank. In the above circumstances ihc workman was not an employee of the bank and her service was rightly terminated.

ORDER

The action of the management ot Bank of India, Nagpur in terminating the services ol Kumaii Vijaya D/o Shamrao Meshram w.e.f. 1-7-99 in legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any oiher relief claimed by her.

• The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated: 12-10-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Piesiding Officer New Delhi, the 31st October, 2001 S.O. 3221.—In pursuance of Section I 7 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 qf 1947), the Centra] Governmeni hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexuie in the Industrial Dispule between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-10-2001.

LNo. S-l I025/7/87-D.lV(B)/(C-I)J

S. S. GUPTA, Under SCL>

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the mailer of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the l.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 10-of 1^88

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and their work- man.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Shri D. K. Vermj.

Advocate.

On behalf of the employers: Shri B. Jo.shi, Advocate.

STATE: Jharkhand. INDUSTRY: O a l. Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th October, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the poweis conlerred on them under Sec- tion 10(1 ) ( d) ol the l.D. Act, 1947 had referred the following dispute to the then Cential Government Industrial Tribunal No. 3, at Dhanbad vide Ministry'¹' Order No. L-2OOI2(293)/83-D.UK A ), dated, ihc 3rd February, 1984. Subsequently the said reference has been transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide Ministry's letter No. S-l 1025/7/87-D.TV(B). dated the 31st December, 1987 :

SCHEDULE

''Whether the promotions made by the manage ment of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, , Dhanbad through General Manager, Katras Area No. IV/PM/MP/1-32/6355 dated 16-7-1982 and No. GM/SA/PM/Oflice Order/3A/2382 dated 31-5-1983 are con- sistent with the promotion policy of Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., circulated vide No. BCCL/PA/l 1/78-6241—6320 dated 20-2-1978 ? If so, to what benefits are othei seniors to the workmen promoted in the said outers in the same cadre of BCCL entitled and from what date ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman as per W.S. in brief is as follows :

It has been submitted that the concerned workmen were working as Electrician/Assistant Foreman/Fore- man at Moonidih Project and Head Quarters ol M/s. BCCL on permanent basis. They submitted that the management maintained a promotion policy for E & M non-executive cadre and in accordance with the said promotion policy the General Manager of a particular area of M / s. BCCL is the cadre controlling authority lor the post of Cat. VI and 'Technical Supeivisory Grade-C and the Chief Engineer (E & M) is the cadre controlling authority for the post of Technical and Supervisory Grades B and A and they exercised their authorities subject to clause 6.0 of the promo- tion scheme. Tt has been alleged b\ the concerned workmen that the management in utter violation nf the promotional policy circulated vide order No. BCCL/ PA-TT/78/6241-6320 dated 20-2-1978 & promoted/ regularised the services of nine workmen to Electrical Supervisor and Technical Grade-A vide office Order 6925

gulanly was committed because of the fact that tht said oJhce were at vananees with the promotion policv/cnculai dated 20-2-7S It has been furthei submitted that Si|ua Area and Katras Area commit- ted another mistake by promoting the tmployees con cemed to the post ol Lleetncal and Supeivisoiv md Technical Giade A They submitted that such post was abolished by the CentiaJ Wage Board foi the Coal Mining Industry as per the lecommendation contain cd in its repoit and thcietoie no one could be pro- moted to such a post specially when the management had no sueh post l i s t i ng undei them The manage merit admitted that the office ordei foi promotion is- sued by Katias and Sijua Aiea weie n it i consistence with the promotion policy ol the management circu- Jated vide No BCCL/P A/1 1/78-6241—6320 dated 20-2 78 and sinee the said circulars are the lesult of mistakes, nregularitics and misappichension in legaid to the policy of the management necessaiy order hat. been passed toi rectifications oi the same I he man agement luithei submitted that they have already taken action to rectify Ihe mistakes done, by Katras And Sijua Area in the matter of promoting some employees violating the circulais as mentioned above issued b them Accoidmgly the management have prayed loi passing an Award icjecting the claim of the concerned woikmen

of the Peisonn:l Mana"n katias Aiea IV/Sijua v.de No IV/PB/MP(A 37)/r>355 dated 16-7-82 and again piomoted/iegularijed 22 woikmen vide Ofhec Ordci No GM/8A/PM/OiIiee-Oidei/3A/2389/S3 dated 31-5 83 in the post ol 1 metric a Supeivison and Tec! meal Grade-A I he concerned woikmen Lhrtink that they ate quite senioi and moie quahl.ed and e peneneed than the woikmen promoted to the po t < i Electrical and Supervisoiy Giadc-A and accoiu'nr, they have been superseded by oidei ol the manage nient ignoring then qualifications and .eruonty The* submitted that they aie vuv niueh eligible foi piorno tion to Technical G i a d e -\ Irom the same date on which then juniois weie promoted as pci order dilei 16 7-82 and 31 5-83 issued by the management Ihc> alleged that sueh illegal supei session by whimsical deeision of the management eieated serious icsciiimcnt amongst the woikmcn, woiking undei the management Accojdingl^ the eonceined woikmen h IVL pi lyed fi passing An Awaid deelning th it *he minuened piu motion ordei dated 16th July, 1982 and 31-519 ^ in the foim of legulansation is not consistent wn'i the piomotion or BCCL vide No BC CL/PA 11/7K/ 6241—6320, dated 20 2-78 and accoidmgly tluy aie entitled to be tieated as Inchmeal Giade A liom (he date when then juniors weie tegulaiised/promoted in Teehmeal GraJe-A The concerned workmen also have placed their elaim that they aie entitled to get diiTer enee of wages and othcj benefits foi the said period

4 The points for consideration in this icfeiemc

aie —

"Whethei the piomoitons made by the management of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad through Gcnei il Manager Katras Area No IV P M / M P ( J- 32)6355 dated 16-7 82 and No GM/SA PM/MP/Ofhce Oidei/3A/2382 dated 31-5-J983 are consistent with the piomo- tion poJicy of Messrs BCCL ciicujated \idc No BCCL/ PA/11/78-6241— 6320 daitd 20-2-1978 > Tt so, to what benefits aie olhei seniors to the workmen piomoted in the said oideis in the sam^ tadic of BCCI entitled and fiom what date ? '

DECISION WITH RFASONS 3 The management on the eontraiy alter filing W S -cum leioindd have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned woikmen asseited m then W S They submitted that BCCL is a vast ortra msation with about 100 collieries, washenes and othei projeels and establishment Under them about 1 75 lakh employees work The collieries have been also divided into a number of aieas being headed by a Scmoi Mining Fngineei in the ianL of Dy Chit f Mining Engmecr/Supeiintendent fhc aieas have been constituted loi ellieient and effective lunctionmi. of the colheiies and their administration The manage merit tuither submitted that Head Ofiice ol M/s BCC I eontrols the various colhents, areas pro|ecls uvi othei esi iblishmcnts and sometimes due to \ i>t size of the organisation and complexities of the oiganisa tional set up ete it becomes difheult to cnsuie ih.il the policies laid down by the company aie piopeil implemented bv the vanous aieas/umts ct< Ffowcvci if any mistakes aie made oi niegulaiities are con mitted the malkis aie investigated and riLcessiiy ae tion is taken Thev fuilnei submitted that fhc pionio tion pohc> toi hleetncal and Mechanical non execu- tive cadre in BCC I was issued vide uieu'ir >o BCCL/PA/11 78 6 2 4 1 - 6 3 20 dated 20 2 1978 in consultation with \anous tiade unions fhe < vd eir culai has clearly mentioned how the piomolionil matter ol the Electncal and Mcch inical e idle should be taken into consideration The managemeni sub- mitted that Katias Aiea and Si|ua art a bv issuing two circulais No IV/PM/MP(A-T)/6355 d iteel 16 7 82 and GM 'SA/PM/Office Oidet/3A/2389/83 dat< d 31 5 83 piomoted some Fleetnuaiis As'-ft Poicman, Foicman to the post of Floctiita] and Supuvisorv Gtade-A Dunns serutiny it uansipied thai ihc slid olflce oidei s issued b\ fhe arcis concerned based on misundeistanding and misappiehcnsion ind that nie-

Learned Advocate for the management in this repard lias tailed to give any satisfactory reply.

6. The main grievance ot the concerned workmen js that violating the office circular issued by the head- quarters of the management in the year H78 tin¹ authorities of Katras and Sijua Areas issued oliice order regularising the services oi some workmen to the post of Electrical Supervisor Grade-A superseding them though they at the relevant time had the requisite qua- lification to get the said promotion. It has been alleged that the authorities of Stjua and Katras Area illegal^' and arbitrarily passed the said order and for winch the concerned workmen submitted that the said ord';r was not consistent with the promotion policy of M, v BCCL which was issued on 20-2-78 and for which they are entitled to be treated as Technical Gradc-A irom the date their juniors were regularised/promoted in Technical Grade-A. It is the specific claim of the management that there was no post of Electrical Supervisor Technical Grade-A and for which regiiL- risation of services of some workmen to the same post could not be considered at all. In spite of claiming so no material is fotthcoming before the Tribunal to show that the management directed the authorities of Katras and Sijua Area to withdraw the said oliice order. Until and unless it is so established then: is reason to believe that the oliice order passed by Katras and Sijua Area daicd 16-7-82 and 31-S-X3 stands No evidence is forthcoming before the Tribunal on the part of the management to show thai the con- cerned workmen had no requisite qualification to get theii services regularised to the post ol Electrical and Supervisory Grade-A. There is also no evidence to &how thai the concerned workmen are junior to tlu workmen whose services were regularised in the post of Electrical Suervisor Grade-A vide office order issued by Katras and Sijua Area. Therefore, until and unless this fad is established i find no scope to dis- believe the contention of the concerned workmen re- lating to their claim. The management also admitted the mistake committed by the authorities of Katras and Sijuu Aiea. Accordingly in view of the facts and circumstances I hold that the services of the concern- ed workmen arc to be regularised lo the post of Elcc trieal Supervisory Grade-A from the date their juniors were promoted to the post of Electrical and Supcrvi- soiy Grade-A if the management by this time did not withdraw the said office order. The concerned woik- men simultaneously are also entitled to get difference ot wages and other benefits for the said period. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—

69I7

Distl. Hilaspur.

The management is diiected to implement the Award within tlnce months from the date of its pub- lication in the Gazette of India.

M/S. Kaylin 'liunspuit (P) Ltd., PO Gevra Project, Distl. UiLispuL. Management.

B. BISWAS. Prohidint; Officer

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of October, 2001

1. The Government of India, Ministry ol Labour vide order No. L-? 101 l/23/87-D.[Il(B) dated 20th November, 1987 has leferred the following dispute 1or adjudication by this tribunal :—

New Delhi, the 5th November, 200J

"Whether the demand of the Madhya Pradesh Koyla Ma/door Sangh, Gevra to treat the workers engaged through M/s Hx-Military Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Rohini Asso- ciates Pvt. Ltd. and M / s. Kaytin Trjnspoit Pvt. Ltd., coal transport conticctors (who are repmtedly not holding valid licence under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 as the direct employees of the Principal Employer i.e M/s. ShCL. Gevra Project is justified ? Tf yes, what relief the workmen eon^-med ac entitled to ?" S,O. 3222.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

[No. L-2101]/23/87-D.TIT(B)J N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGTT/LC/R/244/H7

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

The Secretary, M.P.K.M.S., Gcvra Project, PO Gevra, Distt. Bilaspur. . . . Woikmcn's Representative.

Versus

The Sub Area Manager, Gevra Project, SECL, PO Govra, Distt. Bilaspur, Workmen's

2, The case foi the Union is that die Gevra Pro- ject is rub by SECL. The transportation of coal from mines to coal despatch and coal handling plant had been given on contract to M/s. Ex-Militarv Enter- prises (PI Ltd., M/s. Rohini Associates Pvt. Ltd -inr) M/s. Kaytin Transport Pvt. Ltd. The workers of thw contractor had been doing the job of a prohib'led category in which the workmen of permaneni nature Were engaged for same and similar work at same place. The contractors did not obtain the licence from the Labour Commissioner for the purpose of employ- ment of the contract labour according to the provi- sions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. 1970 Cfor short CLRA Act, J9701 In this way the contractors violated (he mandatory provisions of CLRA Act, 1970 by employing the contract labour without obtaining the valid licence. They obtained licence for the year 1987-88 after the Union had serv- ed a strike notice on them on 20-5-87. The principal employer SECL. also did not obtain any valid licence to employ contractors according to the provisions of CLRA Act, 1970. The workers working with the con- tractors were the real employee of SECL in view of nature of work, past service and supervision of the management. TV management of SECL had the full control over the working of the contract workers. The attendance of the contract workers was taken by the principal employer SECL and Form )3 Register was also maintained by them. Likewise I he principal em- ployer was maintaining the leave register of the con- tract workers. In view of all these faets, the real employer of the contract workers i? SECL and there- fore the relationship of master and servant exists between them.

The General Manager, Koiba West Area, SECL.. Distt. Bilaspur (MP).

M/s. Ex-Militarv Enterprises (P) Ltd , PO Gevra Project, Distt. Bilaspur.

M/s. Rolrni \ssociatcs (P) Ltd, PO Gcvra Project,

3. The Union further alleges thnt the services of several contract workers were terminated after the present dispuic was raised before the competent autho- rity without assigning auv reason. The violation of mandatory provisions of CLRA Act, 1970 automa- tically creates the relationship of master and servant6928 IIIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)l between the Pinieipal employer, SECL and the eon- tract workciv 'I he; are therefore entitled to ivimluri- sation.

4. Another contention ol the Union is lha< I lie con-

that the enjilractors ale nioie agents ot the employees ol SECL. The proper wages weu¹ paid to the contract woikcrs by the contractors and Ihe management had verified the same according lo the mandatory provi- sions ol CLRA Ad, I()7(). Meiely the violation of mandatory piovisions ol CLRA Act bv the contractors shall not create any relationship of master and ser- vant between the contract labours and SFCL. In such a case the contract workers cannot be automa- tically ahsorbed as the direct employees by the SECL. If the contractors of Piincipal employer commit Ihe biench of the mandatory provisions of CLRA Acf, 1970 then they shali be liable to the prosecution under the provisions of the said Act. The contract of trans- portation of coal given to the contractors was a real and valid document and according to the terms and conditions of the contract, the contractors were per- forming their job. Tt is wrong to say that it was mi illegal contract.

tract oi transportalion of coal from mines awarded to the conti actors was nothing but a Sham contract which had no lorce in the eye ol law. The said contract was not given to Ihe Ex-Servicemen with a view to rehabilitate them as per the scheme jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Energy and Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. No Ex-Servicemen was ever re- habilitated in !>ueh scheme. At the same time no such scheme was ever implemented, The contract in ques- tion was not in accordance with the scheme formu- lated by Ihe Government of India to rehabilitate the ex-servicemen as no legal formalities were observed in this respect. The contract workers were not paid the wages as per the recommendation of National Wage Board. They were paid less than the minimum prescribed wages. In view of all these facts, the work- ers engaged through the said three contractors were the direct employees of the Principal employer SECL and therefoie they were entitled to regularisalion and other monetary benefits.

lias held in para lit* (sut> paras 3, 4. 5 and 6) of the judgement as under :—-

"3. Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any ofher provisions in the Act whether e i |vet>s[y or by necessary implication, pi ovides tor automatic absorption pf contract laboui on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under Sub-section (1 ) or Sec tion JO prohibiting employment oi contraei laboui in any process, operation or othci work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of Uie contract laboui \\u\k ing in the concerned establishment.

4. We over rule the judgement ol this court in AIR India's case protectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including High Court for absorption of contract labour following the judgement ol in Air India's case shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the bat-i* of this judgement in houses where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final ?

5. On issuance oi prohibition notification undci Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibit- ing employment of contract labour or other- wise in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to condi tions of service, the industrial adjudicate will have to consider the question whethei the contractor has been inierposcd either on the ground of the having undertaken to pro- duce any given result tor the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine con- tract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers oi the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treat- ed as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the ser- vices of the contract labour in the conceroea establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light oi para 6 hereunder.

6. If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the con- cerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government prohibiting emp- loyment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establish- ment and where in such process, operation of other work of the establishment the prin- cipal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and if necessary by relaxing the condition as to maximum age approptiately 3497 GI/2001—10

6929 taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employ- ment by the contractor and also relaxing trie condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications."

10. Ihe aforesaid principle laid down by the SC m the rccail judgemenl clearly goes to show that the provisions of Section 10 oi the CLRA Act, 1970 noi any ouiei provision ol tht Act provide tor automate absorption Mi contract labour on i., .uj.ig a imtjik-ai on by appropriate Government undci Section I prohibit- ing employment of contract labours in any process operation or other work in any establishment, conse- quently the principal employei cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment This principle indi- cates that the contract workers who are employed through contractors and were doing the prohibited category of job in the mine shall not be entitled to claim automatic absorption as a regular employee of SECL. I his judgement therefore nullifies the argument of il.e Union regarding automatic absorption of the contract workeis as regular employees of the SECL on the ground that they weie working Ihe prohibited category ol job in the coal mines ot Govra Project. They shall always be deemed to be the employee of the contractors only.

11. The representative of the Union during the course of argument, had laid much emphasis on tfv point that the principal employer and the contractor had no valid licence under the provisions nf CLRA Act, 1970 and therefore the contract workers shall be deemed to the employees of the principal employer i.e. SECL. This argument of the Union has no sub.v tance in the eye of law as laid do.wn by the Supreme Court in para 98 of the aforesaid case as under.—

" The principle that the beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extent to reading in the provisions ot the Act what the legislature had not provid- ed whether expressly or by necessary impli- cation or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by tnc legislature. We have already noticed above the intendment ot the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions of service ot the contract labour and autho- rises in Section 10(1) prohibtion of con tract labour system by the appropriate Gov- ernment on consideration, of factors enume- rated in sub-section 2 of Section 10. Ad- mittedly when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a conse- quence of issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence ot violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicily provided in Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act it is not tor the High Courts or this court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the estab- lisment of principal employer or a lesser or6930 I HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PARr II - S E C. 3{n)] a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the ccope of interpretative legis- lation and as such clearly impermissible. We have already held above on consideration of various aspects that it is difficult to accep* that the Parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of abolition noti- fication under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act."

12. The aforesaid principle laid by the SC estab- lishes this fact that the violations of the mandatory provisions of CLRA Act, 1970 in not obtaining the valid licence from the competent authority by the contractors for employing contract workers to do some work in the mines of SECL as per terms and condi- tions of the contract shall not create the relationship ot master and servant between the principal employer and the contract workers. In the same way, if t rr principal employer violates the mandatory provisions of CLRA Act, 1970 by not obtaining the licence lor employing contractors to do some work through the contract labour shall not automatically create the re- la^onship of master and servant. In such case, the piincipal employer and contractors are liable for pro- secution belore a proper forum. Merely the violation of ler.'l revision- <"H11 not cre^e ^ie relationship of roaster and servant between SECL and the contract voAers of Govra Coal Mine Project in th- present i.a t. T ., rf^uTient c> the Ua'on in ih>- c o n n e e ^n is absolutely -T2nn:ngless and >-'ithouf iny substance 13. Another important aspect in rh's case has 10 be „;, .:iL_i L i. . Nl-\zx the coi'tr^c* *rsr 'rarrpcrtir^ rr%o¹ * n coal mir^s of CCYV C^ ";rj n-oact \- g=nn>^ or Vira contract.

14. It lias btui submitted by the in ana ^e- mt-nt uiit, aic contract Icr sniLpoiang coal lio.xi coai riiiitb of i-.-^ru. c^Ojrc" was given 10 die 3 transport comp.-mrj coriau^cd by Ex. Servicemen as per the policy oi the Government oi Inaia with a view to rehabili- tate me EJC Sen/xcmen. This policy decision w*s taken on i4-/-8i as per Anr.exure M-l. It lays down certain guidelines for awarding transport contracts to the companies which are run by ex-servicemen. In view ot the policy or ihe Government ot India and die guidelines given for the purpose the transport contract were awarded by the management to the contractors under reference. The 3 agree- ments of the contract M-2, M-3 and M-4 were executed for transporting coal from Gevra coal mines Project for a period of 5 years, the agreement' with M|s Kaytin Transport enter- prises was for a period from 1-3-83 to 29-2-88. with Ex-Military enterprises Pvt. Ltd from 10-2-84 to 9-2-89 and for Rohini Associates Pvt. Ltd from 5-2-86 to 4-6-91. These transport contractors were required to transport specified quantities of coal upto at distance of 5 kms from quarry face to the Railway siding and Coal Mandling Plant. The rates of transportation were fixed as per metric tonnes. The payment of transportation charges was made as per terms and conditions of the agreement.

15. From the perusal of the agreements M-2, M-3 and M-4, it appears that the entire terms and conditions of the transport contract were incorporated .nd according to them, the contractors were carrying on the work of transportation of coal from mitur.. Some statutory provisions were also incorporated in the tenus and conditions of the contract. It appears that these statutory p-ovidons were incorporated in the terms and conditions oi the contract With a view to benefit the wor- kers, these statutory provisions were incor- porated in the agreement with a v'ew to ensure the contract workers that heir rights in all respect shill be protected ?nd thv con Victors will be dnfy bound fo exlvd ; l! bandits avcilab'e to t!v:n f -ordi^g 'o 1""/. The inr^rpor.^:°ii cf A\~ s-rm^ry p~cvl :o:ii- in A; "greements s'i?il not H " iy Tr""rmiT viciate tli^'r v^'^ity. On t're centrery vez ocauine- i-=ss of -he contraci has go the W~>1 Gtrenath "<% e-3tnt^\zbmg th^'r validity by & )ve siipula- tlons •"'! the j^irpemp-nt.

io, Tne Union's lepresemative vehemently uXgUvU a i at LaC agiC^lllSlj.1 OI COil'1'UClS in question were sham documents. In this con- nection, they naci noc been able to show as to now these docaiaei.^ are mgcuui-j an" their validity is impcachaSjie. By merely raying mat tne Principal £mpioyer had the actual contrOi o^er tne contract workers ana they were maintaining the attendance etc. of the workers will not in a:iy manner help to sub- stantiate this contention ot the union. In this respect the Elateijient o£ U-lion's wi-- n^sscs Vindhya Singh, Ram Kumar Verma and Bhagirat Yadav is relevant in establish- ing Ihe relationship of master and servant bet- ween the principal employer and the contract workers as well as the genuineness of the agreements of contracts for transportation of coal. These witnesses have clearly stated in their statements that they were employed by the contractors under reference and their attendance was recorded by them. The wages were paid to them by. the contractors and not by the management of SEGL. They have also testified that the leave was granted to them by the contractors and their services 0931

for transporting coal from coal mines of Gevra Project, SECL shall not be deemed to be in ployee of SECL. They are held to be the em- ployee of contractors only. No relationship of master and servant exists between the principal employer SECL and the workers employed through the said 3 contractors for transporting coal from coal mines of Gevra Project. These contractors obtained valid licence during, the course of conciliation pro- ceedings and this fact is not going to create any relationship of master and servant bet- ween the SECL and the coiitiact workers. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

19. Issue No. 2.—In the light of my find- : *f, 'tliil reasons g.v^u on Issue No. 1, the contract workers in question are not entitled to the mguTa.iisMidh-' and monetary benefits as elr.rrued by the Unio-i. Issue No. 2 is cmw¹ red accordingly'. •

ojc+k ^ ' no 'l" - { !/ ;c " t '" w⁰⁰ " ^ r i - ^ r¹^^ f )n ^ - *2 37

,³onp "f "r the reference of tV rjr?<-^ -"f C'vout* in '^;> ^ on .Jo^- ^ h^c n-e^dy Sr n %

vic⁵ons of CLRA Act, l ° 7 0 bv -"ot rb'ain'pp the 'i^r-cc bv the Pnnrip^l "^^ov^r and "he r o r f r T f o 's will not cioaffi an ' r^"+\or*'-''-:i i " ^ m"-fer and pervant between SECL snd f^e cortrrct wo^Ver¹? as hHd by SC in the latest judsmerjt quoted epriier. The rsrinciral emDlover and the contractors are liable fgp pro^ciit^on only in the case of violates; %e) mandarv provisions of CLRA Act- 197*0.' Except tKs, no other conseauence will foiled.⁸

./2Q. The aianagfijoierit during the course of argument jsointed out certain facts wh'ch saw fh?, lighi after the present dispute wrs -sfer- *M to 'lijs tribunal£oi p •jw'''"it")" vi"'e ordpr datcu,20|26.11-§7. P.-or to ref-re^ oi the d^pu1^ur by^JJie TJr.Iosi ni ijbr- lt,sue of nyn?,"" ci "O'PS <*?Z^ ~ : - •... ' ,\ c¹; 1/ h c \t-Cl v rker^ i i ^ ^ r e , ^ -^ >"l^ej ~1 G~ ' ^ 7 of ct ovf|V,by, t L c f ^ ^ L, TI12 "iio¹- Coin- c- :*' 4^,Ciuvr.IfgJj0,ur Comrnlsciovr ^C) Ntw T^e c^ rce i^^'^licr ^ei^W, jlJie Is^if* ^n-Nig 'L o< *i"oc"e^'rg t<"? Union ^pH ih^ r" -^•"f^" o- tivi- o" ilic maK^^^icnt ri^rcil for K' rr;"? dli^ate to'^rbi^tor frr .--s 'n^ ^ w rd in *Ke d&tfii^. "*li^isfek|^li'-i ^. IC M - VP ^f ^ E ^L ^^^p^oi^-fe-i ^ f t r ^ ' or to _et"je the c"pute Q^k t^firA' -o^bg'd'd arbitration rv/rrd ' on 2f?-S-"J¹' "Tms'^rbivration av/rrd hes Lren filed hi th€\vorkers. The management of SBCL is"d#fittad to make the amount paid by the recovery from the bills of the contrac- tors for making; the difference of payment to such of ife&- -ertrttract workers for the period fhtdy have worked with the s^id contractors. This award has been challenged by SECL be- 18. In the light of foregoing discussions""Ati is held that the workers engaged through ftoer Transtx>rt contractors Mk. Ex Military En- tfrnrises Pvt. Ltd. Mis. RoMnf A"oncia*es Pvt. Ltd., and M|s. Kaytin Transport Pvt. Ltd.

fore the High Court of MT by WP No. 2626> 1996. The High Court ordered the payment of 50 per cent of the awarded amount to tlic workers and the rest amount was ordered to be deposited with the RLC(C) Jabaipur. This order was also challenged before the SC by the management. The SC confirmed the order of High Court and laid down the pro- cedure for making Ihc payment to the con- tract workers. In view of this order, the pay- ment has been made to the workers as an in- terim relief. The original petition has not been finally disposed off by the High Court of MP.

21. It appears that the fact of reference of the present dispute was never brought to the notice of the superior court. However the matter regarding the validity of arbitra tion award is pending before the High Court and therefore it will not be appropriate for this tribunal to make any comment in respect to the said award. During the course of argument it was pointed out by the manage- ment that the photocopy of the award filed before this tribunal docs not bear the sentence "List of workman employed by the said con- tractors is at annexures A. B. and C." This sentence appears to have been added in the last para of the award, copv of which M-8 was filed before the SC. This addition is below the last sentence. In the original award- the said sentence does not find place at all. In this respect. I would not like to add anything more as the matter is subiudice before the High Court.

22. During the course of argument the management further submitted that the identity of workers and their numbers, about whom the present dispute has been referred for adjuducation, had not been established bv the union. The management's contention is that the Union had taken varying stand with regard to the number of workers cmploved by the contractors in several proceedings before different forum as under :—

1. Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) During conciliation pro- ceedings. 114 2, Before Chief Labour Commis- sioner (C) (Proceedings for determination whether the workmen were doing the same and similar nature of work as -employed bv the principal em- ployer). 134 3. Before the CGIT- Jabalpur (ins- tant case). 153 4. Before the Arbitrator (Shri R. K. Mehta). 160 The Union has not been able to clarify its position in this respect. I have already observ- ed that the contract workers, whatever their number might be, shall not be treated as em- ployee of the Principal employer, SECL. In view of this matter, I do not think it proper to discuss the genuineness of the number of con- tract workers submitted by the union durirjq different proceedings pending before different forum.

23. Issue No. 3.—On the reasons stated iho\1 SECL and the contract workers employed !

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

K. M. RAL Presiding Officer Tf f ^ f t, 5 T ^ SX 2001

*r.m 3223.—sffcftfta? faprra "Tfaf*nm, 1947 ( t 9 4 7 ^r 14) vt Erm 17 % w\w\ if, %?jfto Tfh- 1*T% ^ ^ Rf % ^ fK ^ am K f*rf**rc 3fa>f*R?

TT^P; TT 2-11-2001 fft SRT pr m i [tf. n?f-2 2012/42/97-irnf WIT (*f,'-ll)]

0/T "ft $ W T, i^ wfwrcl New Delhi, the 5>th November, 2001 S.O. 3223.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunall Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their woYkmnm, which was received by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

[No, L-220l2|42l97-IR(C-n)j N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXiJRE

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

Case No. CGIT LCik!85|98

Presiding Officei . Shri K. M. Rai.

Shri V. K. Khare, Ihrough Rashtnva Kov'a khdJi'ii Mazdoor Sangh, Branch SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur.

.... Applicant

Versus

The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarters, Sripat Road¹,

Bilaspur.

. . Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of October, 2001 1. The Government of Indh, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012142'97 IPC. II dated 24-4-98 has referred the following ditpute foi adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the actior cf the management of SECL Bilaspur in not selecting Iptomotimi Shri V. K. Khar" clerk spi Grade SECL Bilasmir to the post of Liaison Supdt. (T & S Grade-A) is justified '> If not, to wha* relief the Workman is entitled ?"

2. The workman appealed before the tribunal and stated that No disoute regarding his promotion exists any more He orayed to mss Nn Dispute Award in this ca"e On his praver. No Dkoutf Award is passed.

3. In view of the ubc e said fact-,, i| is held that no dispute exists between Ihf parties The workman has already teen promoted bv the management. No Dispute Award is therefore passed.

4. ^onv of the awird be sent to the Ministry of l a b o rs Government of InHn as r rr mles

6933 New Delhi, the 5th November, 2001 S.O. 3224.—In puisuance ol Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal]Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the in- dustrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL aid their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2nd November, 2001.

[No. L-22012l51'96-IR(C-II)l

N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 1RIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CG[T'LC'Rl93l97

Presiding Officer : Shri k M. Rai

Shri Ramchandra, S/o Terasram Ex-Choukidar Subhash Mme, Sohagpur Area, SECL rep. bv General Secretary, Koyfa Mazdoor Sabha Post Dhanpuri Distt Shahdol.

.Applicant.

Versus

Sub Area Manager Budhar, Sub Area SECL Sobapo'ir Area Post Dhanpuri, Distt. ShalhcTol.

. .Non-npplicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of March, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012/51/96-IR(C-II) dated 14-3-97 has referred the following dispute for adju- dication by this tribunal—

3497 GT/2001—1169'A THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923 [PART U—SEC. 3lii)j never negligent in his duly. The order of punishment is absolutely illegal and deserves to be guashed. Looking to his disability he deserves to be lcmstated with back wages and otnei consequential benefits, 3. The case for the management is that on 27-6-9-'-, the workman met with an accident resulting into a previous injury on his thum finger, Due to this fact he was given light duty of chovvkidar. No training '*<• required for the duty of chowkidar. During the duty hours of workman the explosive was illegally re- moved from the magazine, in this way the workman was negligent to his duty which resulted in the theft of the explosive in the magazine. The chargesheet of misconduct wais served on him and the proper de- partmental enquiry wai conducted. He was given ample opportunity IO defend hnnself. The charges were found proved aaa'nst him and therefore he was removed from service nn the basis of enquiry ieport. The punishment awarded to hh\ was iust and proper and therefore does not require any interefernce. The workman is not entitled to any reliei as claimed by him.

4. The following -ss les arise for determinaion in this case:

1. Whether the Departmental Enquiry conducteo against the workman bv the management is tust and proper ?

2. Whether the management is entitled lo lead evidence to prove misconduct of the workman?

3. Whether the punishment awarded to workman is just and proper ?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment with back wages ?

5. Rerlief and costs ?

1. Issue No. 1 &2,—It has oven held \m 19-7-9 by this tribunal that the depaitmental enquiry conducted against the workman by the management is iust and proper. In view of this findings, these issues need no further consideration at all. The management is not required to lead any evidence to prove the mis- conduct of tiie workman Both these issues are answered accordingly.

6. Issue No. 3 & 4 :—The workman was given a Chargesheet by the management for dereliction to the duty as a theft of one hox explosive war committed at the time of his dutv hours, The workman was negli- gent in his duty and therefore the explosive boxes were kept out of the magazine thouch there was sufficient space to keep the exp^sive inside the magazine. The workman never raised any alarm in the night wh'ch the theft of one bnx explosive was committed. He also did not make any effort to apprehend the th;eves. For this misconduct, he was removed from service. Now we have to see ,i" to *vhe*her the punishment awarded against the wVicmpn is iirct and proper "i the circumstances of the case ? Admittedly the work- man "had met with a serio'is accident resulting in the amputation of his thumb finser of rieht hand. True to this fnct, he was eiven h'cht dutv of chovkidar Durins the course of his eiTrolo\ment, no report of such mis- conduct was ever Ind'ec? aenitNt him t>v th; manage- ment. Duiing the coutse of employment, he had become disabled also. lie himself did not commit the theft of one box explosive nor he gained any benefit out of the illegal removal of the explosive by sonic miscreants. Looking to this circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be too harsh. In such a circumstance, the ksser punish- ment shall meet the ends of justice. I, therefore set aside the punishment of dismissal from service. The period of his ouster iiom service shall be treated as Leave Without Pay and for this period, he shall not be entitled to any payment of wages. The woikman shall be entitled to leinsfitcment only. Issue Nos. 3 & 4 aie answered accordingly.

7. [ssue No. 5.—On Ihi reasons stated above, it is hereby ordered that the workman shall be reinsta- ted wi hin i' period of ? mon'hs from the date of award. The workman shall not be entitled to back wages for the period ot his ouster from service till the date of reinstatement. The peiiod of his ouster from service shall be treated as continuity in service only for the purposes of pensioncry benefits The workman shall be paid the wage for the per'od he is entitled as per rules. The reference i" accordingly answered in favour of the workman and acainst the management.

8. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of I a'^our as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th November, 2001 S.O. 3225.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the rnanapement of WCL and thc;r workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

[No. L-22012|3OO|91-TR(C-II)I N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Office

\NNFXURE

BEFORE THE CENfTPAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, .1ABAIPUR

Case No. CGlTiLC'RilQ 4?

Presiding Officer : Shri K M. Rai. Smt. Bhaewati Bai, through General Secre*aty, 6935 SKMS (AITUC), t'O Chandametta, Distt. Chhindwara. Applicant

as shown in the Annexure in the Industiial Dispute between the employeis m relation to the. management ot FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

Versus

INo. L-22012i47o'9S-IR(C-II)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer The Maqager, Chandametta Colliery, PO Chandametta, Distt. Chhindwara. Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 10th daiy of October, 2001

1. The Government oi' India, Mmisiiv of Labour vide order No. L-220i2|300,91-IRC.II dated 9-1-92 hajs referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Wiiethar' the* action of the management i e. Manager, Chandametta colliery of WCL, Pench Area PO Chandametta, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) to stop from work to Smt. Bbatwati Bai, Dio Gindu Ex Wagon Loader of Chandametta colliery w.e.f. 6-1-74 is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief are the said workman is entitled to ?"

2. Neither the proper representative of the Union nor the workman appeared before this court to prove the claim as referred by the Government of India. lh" court therefore proceeded exparte against the woi kman on 22-4-99. No evidence has been led by the Unionj workman to prove the claim in this case. It was the duty of the workman to prove her case by adducing proper evidence. She has failed to prove the same. The Union has also not acted bonafide in this case to prove the claim of the workman.

3. On the reasons stated above it is held that No Dispute Exists between the parties. Hence No dispute Award is passed.

4 Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

"•\Vhethe! the <

S.O. 3226.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Di.pule Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunul|Labour Couit. Inipur6936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 3, l<)23 [PATH I I -S E C. 2(n)\ New Delhi, the Mh November, 200J S.O. 3227.—In pursuance of Section 17 ol the Industrial Disputes Act, 194/ (14 of iy47) the Cen- tral Government jicieby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Inbunal/Labour Court Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to ihe management of SCCL and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

[No. L-22U25/25/2001-JA(C-JI)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Ollicer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL : CUM : LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANT

PRESENT ;

Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer.

Tuesday, the 9th day of October, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 136 of 2000 BETWEEN

Yatakuri Venkaty, S o Ankaitth. 45 years, Occ : Ex-lumberman, Somagudem No. 3 Incline, Tenugupalii Vill, ami Post, TChecmini Mandal, Dist. Adilabnd.

—Petitioner.

AND

1 he General Manager, Singarcni Collieries Co. Ltd., Mandamatri, Distt. Adilabad. —Respondent This petition coming befoie me lor final hearing in the presence of Sri C. S. N. Reddy, Advocate lor the respondent, but petitioner and his Advocate are absent and having stood over lor consideration till this date, the court passed the following :- -

AWARD

1. This is a petition iiled U|S. 2-A(2) of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, iy47, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act, 1987.

Facts of the case briefly are as lollows :—- The petitioner was working as fimberman. Chargeslieet was issued on 14-8-96 alleging that the petitioner had put-up 28 mu^teis only in the year, 1995 and he was absent for the lemaining days with- out sanctioned leave or sulHaent cause. Charge- sheet was returned unseived. It was published in a daily newspaper. The petitioner remained expaite in the enquiry.

Ihe enquiry ollicer came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner was pioved.

Enquiry report was given to the petitioner under acknowledgement calling for his comments. But the petitioner had not offered his comments or reinadss against the enquiry leport. The petitioner was dis- missed from the service w.e.f., 27-5-97.

The pjesent petition was filed on 4-10-2000 2. Respondent filed counter.

3. Petitioner and his Advocate are absent.

Ex. M-l to Ex. M-9 are marked.

Heard respondent.

4. The point for consideration is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so, whether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from ihe service is in proportion to the charge '.' 5. POINT :—The petitioner remained exparte in the enquiry. The petitioner did not give his explana- tion to the charge-sheet. "Ihe petitionei received the enquiry report, but not offered his comments or re- marks against the enquiry report.

6. 'The petitioner had put-up only 28 musters in the year, 19l>5 and he was absent for the remaining days without sanctioned leave o; sufficient case Even-after issuing the charge-sheet, the petitioner was absent from duties. He was not suspended from duties. The petitioner continued to be absent till he was dismissed from the service w.e.f. 27-5-97. The petitioner kept quiet for more than three years after his dismissal and filed the present petition on 4-10-2000.

I consider that the charge against the pctitionci is proved and the punishment of dismissal of ihc petitioner from the service is in propoition to the charge. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.

Jn the result, this petition ij dismissed. Fhe ur- der of dismissal of the petitioner from the servic: is confirmed. Each party do bear their own cost...

Typed to my dictation, collected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 9th day ol October, 2001.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chaiiman-cum-

Prcsiding Olueer Appendix of Evidence Witnesses-examined

For workman :— For Management : — —Nil— — N i l- Exhibit s

hoc workman : — —Nil—

For Management :—

Ex. M-l dt. 14-8-96—Charge-sheet No. SMG- 3,CS|57|96|47.

Ex. M-2 dt. 24-8-96—Undelivered cover.

Ex. M-3 dl. 9-10-96—News-paper dt. 9-10-96 in which charge-sheet-cum-enquiry notice was published.

Ex. M-4 dt. 25-10-96—Enquiry proceedings Ex. M-5 dt. 20-12-96—Enquiry report.

Ex. M-6 dt. 29-12 96—Li. No. SMG-3,WO case ii|C|96|14.

Ex, M-7 dt. 12-3-97—Show-cause notice No. P,MM|7|2'97|769.

Ex. M-8 dt —Acknowledgement Ex. M-9 dt. 27-5-97—Dismissal order No. P|MM[7|2|97|1463.

6937 Central Government Industrial 'liibuiial|Labour Couit Mumbai as shown in the Anncture in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FC1 and their workman, which was leecived by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

|No. L-22012l78[99-lR (C-II)J

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S, N. Saundankar, Ficsiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2|156 of 1999 Employers in Relation to the Management of Food Corporation of India

The Zonal Manager (W), Food Corpoiatlon of India, Zonal Office, Mistry Bhavan, Mumbai-20.

AND

Their Woikman The Zonal Secretary (W), F.C I, Fmployees Association, Room No. 9, 4th Floor, Mistry Bhavan,

Mumbai-20.

APPEARANCES :

For the Finployer • Mr. V. Narayanan, Advocate. For the Workmen : Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate. Mumbai, dated 26th September, 2001

AWARD¹

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22O12/78/99/IR(CM-TI), dated 30-7-9913-8-99, have icferred the following Indus- trial Dispute to this trihnnal for adjudication in exer- cise of the powers ronferred on it bv clause (tT) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. SIi. R. P. Mahilianl.

8. Sh. 13. G. Acharckar.

9. Sh. U. Mohana.

10. Smt. A. R. Pawar.

J1. Ms. M. V. Shejwadkar.

12. Sh. S. R. Bagkat.

10. Sh. A. P. Lad.

14, Sh. D. N. Gand.

15. Smt. A. C. Scquiia.

Id. Smt. K. U. Ranc.

2. The j'liuve said prisons die employees ui the F.C.I. It is contended ^.C.I. employee;, ate allowed to avail ihe lauiiiy ui rfiuuat L"arsnan ( I ^ I L .J lor the block yeais ot lour years and if the employees could not avail die same within four years thty can avail tlie same in the following calendar months when pnictice has been follow ed on the same principle by the Government ot India. It is contended, benefit of encashment of leave travel to the F.C.I, employees was extended as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 14-1-89 and that F.C.l.'s Head Quarter:., New Delhi vide k\ ciKular No. : 4 ot 1989 dated 25-4-89 -speak on extension oi rhe ,e facilities to c a ^ o iy III & IV employees und as per these instructions em- ployees who have Mibmitted wiitten undertaking icttor ol option -.an avaii .ueh encashment n| L"IC tor the block year for which LTC (Bharat Darshan) is admissible to them. Ii is contended the above said employees applied lor encashment of LTC (Bharat Pr.rshan) during the grace period ol one •year ot the block ye air 1990-93 ~\.v in the year 199J and the same was sanctioned and paid by the Zonal Manager (W) and the amount was paid was accounted for calculation of income tax for the financial year 1-4-94 to 3-3-95, and that income tax on the said amount was recovered from the silary ol the employees. It is contended the Zonal Manager (W).FCL Mumbai vide office order dated >(•.-')5 advised the Dy. Mana- ger (Finance) of Zonal Ol!ice(W) to recover the amount paid towards encashment of LTC from the salary of the employees in five instalments, and that recovery was started from salary of June '95 on- wa|rds. It is contended the Emplovccs Association requested the management and thereafter to the R.L.C CC), Mumbai ind en the intervention by the R.L.C by his letter daied 20 6-95. the recovery was not effected Tt is corTctuTed if these employees were not entitled for encashment of L T.C. durine exten- ded per'od of 1994 the FC.I. management should not have sanctioned nnd nairl the ?nc.'".hmrnt of L.T.C. and therefore conimdrrl that the employees Iv nit mit to hard"hin muT mn^uivi'Hv prnved In direct the mnnawnvnt not to rcos'ei Ibe p;ucl pmonnt.

3 The F.C I. opposed the claim ol the employees bv filinr Written Statement (Exhibit-7). Tt is con- tended lhait the instrucions in Circular No. 4 of 1989 dated ?5-4-RQ does not speak about the grnc; period Tn order to ensuie iTinf each and evc-rv emniovee even at fHd level ma" he able to 1'¹¹ I' during the Grace period for the block of I')Xf>-R9. The claim i of reimbursement for the block of 1990-93 during the giace period i.e. up to 1994 the management allowed their claims. However, clarification was sought from the H.Q.'s that m" Circular No. 44|94 it is" specifi- cally pointed out that the employees who have not availed the concession of Bharat Darshan for ih^ block ol 1990—93 i.e. uplo 31-12-93 are net en'illcd lor encashment of L.T.C Action was taken of re- covery from the employees who have availed the said facility during the grace period ol block 1990—'-'3. It is contended employees hejein referred to above have full opportunity to get ruimbu,sement in the block of four years between 1-1-90 to J 1-12-93 and that they cannot claim as of a right, reimburse- ment and encashment of L. 1 .C. in the extended pe- riod. It is contended that the above employees ai.e not entitled to claim as of right the benefits and that to minimise the financial burden was covered under such recovery were allowed to repay the amount by instalments, or to adjust the block yeai of Bharat Darshan against the current if available and that ic- eover all income tax as also a matter of adjustment. For all these reasons it is contended that the claim being devoid of substance be dismissed nith com- pensatory costs. By way of Rejoindci (Exhibits) the Association reiterated die contents in the State- ment of Claim and opposed the Written Siatcment.

4. On the basis ot the pleadings my learned !V deeessor liamed issue.-, ai (E\h,bit-10). V ice-Pie^.- dent of the F.C.I. Employees Association Mr. Kuhhash Sakhara Kesarkar filed affidavit (Exhirnt- 11) an.! closed evidence vide purshis (Exhibit-J.lj. On behalf of the management Deputy Manager IVJi. M. S. Rane, tiled allidavit (Exhibit-13) and closed evidence orally.

5. Management filed written submissions (Exlnb't- 14) and (he Association (Exhibit-15). On hearing 'he Learned counsels and perusing the record and the written submissions, I record my findings on Ihc lolloping issues lor the reasons recorded below :

Issues bindings J. Whether the action ol the management Ves. of F.C.I., Mumbai cancelling the order of encashment ot L.T.C. in case of 16 emplo- yees is justified

2. If not, what icliel the workmen are Does not survive. entitled ?

REASONS

6. Admittedly the employees oi Food Corpoialion ol India are allowed to ava'I the facility ot flhoial Darshan (LTC) lor the block yeais of lour yeais. It is seen• from the lecord the employees vvcre given the facility for the block of 1986—89, during the ex- tended period up to 1990 as one time exemption only for the block of 1986-89, by the clarificatory letter dated U-12-89, (Bxhibit-9/2). I Ins letter clearly speaks that the lacility for the block of iyg(5—^u Was extended for one year in 1990 ;aid it does not speak anywhere that, it is to be continued as joutine. The intention for giving exemption as above was disclosed in that letter, i.e.. the Memo- j and am ol Understanding was sinned on 23-3-89 and the block of 1986-89 was at iK fag end of the 6Q .9

ORDER

I he action of the management .i! Food Corporation of India, Mumbai, uincellinL' the oulei of encash- ment of L IC (Bharat Da'shan) in case ol sixte.n employees as per list enclosed \> justified.

S N. SAUNDANK \R. TJ rsidiiu' OfUeei block vc-ii .mil in order lo ensuie thai each and every employee even at field level m.iy be ahle to get the leimbuisement. I his shows thai the facihh of Bharat Darshan (L1C) was lo he availed for th: block year oh four yea's and was not to be extended Tliv' \ ice President of the F.C.I. Fmplo>ecs Asso- ciation Mr. Kcsaikar, admits in cross-examination, para. 9, that the union, v. ho had espoused the cause was party to the circular daled 25-4-S9 (F-xhihit-9/ I ). CIause-4 of this ciieular which binds the union, nowhere speaks that the facility was lo be extended even after four years. When the clarification provi ded in the Head Quarter Circular dated 11-12-89 (F,x-9i2) was exclusively applicable for the block of 1986—89 extended upto 31st December. 1990, ques- tion of extending the facility of Bharat Darshan (LTC) again for further block of 1990—93 in 1994 does not aiise,

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 7th November, 2001 7. It is seen from the record, the zonal office with- out prior clarification allowed the employees to avail the L.T.C. facility for extended period, which was not within their competence. It is further seen fioin the record three employees at serial No. 5, 8 & 9 in the schedule had refunded the disputed amount, and on the same line, the iwt of the employees arc also liable to relund the amount which they look as per the incorrect advise of the Zonal Office.

S.O. 3229.—Tn this Ministry's Gazette Notification of even number dated 3-7-2001 published in Part II Section 3(ii) vide SO No. 1863 dated 3-7-2001 the name of the management "Central Sericulture Re- •scarch and Training Centre" appearing in 7th and 8th sentence may be read as the "The Chairman. Commandar H.Q., KKG Sub-Area, Bangalorc- 560001."

LF. No. L-14012 98|98-TR(DU)J

KULDTP RAT VFRMA, Desk Ollicvr 8. The Learned Counsel Mr. Anchan for the union submits that the management extended the facility for one year in 1990. On the same analogy, they should have extended again for one year i.e., upto the >ear J994, as the circular dated 25th April, 1989 is vague and not clear therefore there is scope ol interpretation of extension of one year. I am unahle to accept this submission, for the simple rea- son that the concession of LTC is for the block year of four years, thereby it should be availed within four years only. The management it is seen considering the circumstances prevailing in 1989 hv clarification dated J1-12-89 had extended the pciiod of one vear in the year 1'WO. Nothing on record to show the ciieumstanees wan-anting again to ex- tend the period. The fact that the facility was ex- tended earlier for some icasons, the zonal officci should not have without anv competence to allow the facility in contravention lo the M O.LJ. and circular dated 25-4-89. In view of the position, obviously the action of the management cancelling the order of encashment of LTC¹ (Bharat Darshan) for the block years 1990—93 to be extended unto 1994, in case of the employees in list enclosed, can said lo be totally justified. Consequently the concerned em- ployees arr b'able to refund the amount of LTC. The issues ate au'wered accordingly and hence the order:

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : N O V. 2 4, 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 3, 1923 [ P A RI I I- S E C. 3 ( I 1 )| New Delhi, the 8th November, 2001

biought into force] of the said Act shall come into

1oice in the following areas in the State of Rajasthan S.O. 3230.—In cxeieise ol the powers eonlcr-

namely >—

icd by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Em-

ployees' State Jnsuiance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948)

"The aieas compiling the revenue Places ol the Central Government hereby appoints the Is;

Jasol and 1 emawas Khasra Nos. 127, 130, December, 2001 Lis the date on which the provisions

131, 132, 133, 135, 136 and 13 7 ol Tehsil of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

Paehpadra in District Banner." have already been brought into force) and Chapter

V and VI [except Sub-section (i) of Section 76 and

[No. S-38OI3l22|2OONSS.l] Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

K. C. JAIN, Director fruited by the Manager, G I M.

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhl-110054, 2001