r,li5o

Tlir 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

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.

New Delhi, .he II h November, 2001

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 Secy

MINISTRY OP FINANCE

Departircn* of Economic Affairs

(Irsuranee Division)

New Delhi, he Pth 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

6860

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

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

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

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

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)

6861

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

C <\<

Ware Housing

Corpoiation

discharging

ih>,

services of Shri Kartik Ram

Didhi

Wtichm,

assistant, Gr II at Raipur w e f 30 1 88 is 'ej '

and justified⁹ If not, to what relief the wo km i

is entitled to

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

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 <uid lie has not been given any chance loi ie

guiansatton according to the piovisions ot 1 L) \ti He is

u.eieby tmiilt.il to reinstatement witii all back wages

3 I he case foi the management is that tne woihman Ac

empioyi-U tenipoianly tot a penod ot

3 months, vie oidei

dated J.-6 86 He was not given the regular appointment

Foi leguiai appointment, me candidate has to go through

vaiious selection pioc^duies as per ttie reciuitment rules

Fhe workman was appointed without following me iegium

election procedure ior the post of Ware House Asbistant

Gidue H For regular appointment, the vaceancy was

vide ordei dated 11-9 86 The woikman applied lor regulci

appointment as Ware House Assistant Grade II

He was

given tliree opportunities to appeal in the test ior reguiui

appointment as Ware House Assistant The workman could

not pass wiitten and typing test In all the tests, he tailed

and iheieiore he could not be selected for regular appoint-

ment as Wa e Flouse Assistant Grade II

Initially he was

given a temporary emplojnieiit for a period ol 3 month

only and therefore as pei teims and conditions of the em-

ployment his appointment came to an end

The manage-

ment extended his period of employment in order to give

him opportunity to clear the test for legular appointment

Tne workman could not succeed and therefoie his seiviec^

weie dispensed with Fie was given ietrenchment compensa-

tion before terminating his service His ease is not ti veied

under the ptovisions of Sec 25 F ot I D

Act, 1947 He

cannot claim regulansation as a matter of light The om i

ot teimmation passed by the management is just and propsi

The workman is not entitled to any relied as claimd by him

4 The following issues arise for decison in this case and

my findings theieon are noted hereinafter —

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 wef

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

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 wef

31-1-88 is

justified If not, what

itlief the

woikman is en

titled to^r)"

6 1h

p^rcie«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 final

7 The cise foi the woikman is identical to the ease of

the afoieSTid woilnnen whose di nute was lefened to this

tribunal The facts of both the cases are fhe same Tn view

of the award passed by this tribunal on 9 3 92 the present

dispute i> ilso disf >ed off accordingly The reasons e'^yen by

this ti bunal in the pievious award aie prefectly iiist and

pi-0"i i ,p(l fh-refor-' F do not find in\ rcison 10 differ wi h

flic < me 11K previous award clc irlj dispose of the piesent

dispute also

68o

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • NOV 24, 2001/ \GRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART II -SFC

3(IO]

8 Adm tteJly the wort men

could

no*

!ei:

the * st

ihuc^j 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 wef

31-1-88 On

the reasons <Uitcd •'bo^t it i» held that the workman is not

entitled to reinstatement wuh back wages

Th" oider ot

teiminahon passed by the management on 31-1-H8 is |i>

and propsi

The woikman cannot claim

ttegu'ai isation to

the post as a matter cf right

This

issue

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» <wik

man is not entitled to legulai sation to the post as claimed

by him

is also not entitled to any monetaiy benefits

The lefeicpce

is accordmsly

answered in favour of the

management and against the workman

10 Copy of the award be sent to the

Government of

India Mimsirv of I abour as per rules

M RAI, Piesidinu Office

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 I I 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 to⁹ '

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

n e 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�ie 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 <ame Scheme

After series of

n'-"Otialion

discussion with different unions the following

cuteria were evolved for listing the Labouiers —

(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 th' 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

A_din a final discus?, on was held between the part'es on

Is ^ 1979 and is was decided that the list submitted by Umons|

Stc euoies shall be venfied with names of the laboureis to

whom dock entiy permits were issued by tht C I S F As the

Management failed to finalise the list effecti\ely keeping in

view the cnteua several writ petit.ons were filtd befoie tlie

Hcnble Hig'i Court and finally the Hon ble Court diected

th" Pott uuFhonty to finalise the list by 7 5-1980 It i* urged

that the aforesaid direction was not complied with by the

Management within the stipulated time The present affected

wo kmen stated to have been worked in the Port undei various

conlrac ors ard stevedoies They foimed

an organisation

known as

Onssa Dock Workers Reserve Pool

(in short

Reseive Pool)

The purpose behind the Reserve Pool was to

supplv labour force to various contiactors and stevedoies

witl u view to ensure payment of minimum wages to *he

woikers Subsequently e is stated that the authorities to the

Port Tru,t having agreed to provide transportation wojk to

tht R.esei\p Pool, directed it to engage the labour who had

been woikmg in the Poit under diffeient contractors and to

lecruit outsiders only when the existing labour foice was

found inadequate

That resulted the woikers who hid been

woiking undei different conti actors were employed by the

Reserve Pool fcmployment caids were issued io the workers

as per the dw-ection of the Port Trust authont es After the

cargo handling operation was taken over by the 1st Party

Management the reserve pool submitted a li«t of workeis

employed by 't for inclusion of their names in the list but

due to manipulation and being influenced by other Unions

excluded manv names fiom the list

However in pursuance

to the order dated 7-4-1980 passed by the Hon ble Hiah Court

in O J C No 157 of 1980 the 1st Party-Management issued

notices on 11 4-1980 to the Reserve Pool to submit the names

of us worker¹ to be included in the list It is a case of 2nd

Paity Union that they submitted a list and injed to re-

examine the lists already published

The 1st Party Manage-

ment did not take any step In the mean while the workers

formed a Union known as Bharatiya Bandar Mazdoor Sangh"

to tale care the cause of the affected workers who were

denied of employment by non-inclusion of their namts in the

mam list afc well as stand by list So the sa d Union (2nd

Paity) submitted eaharter of demand which was admitted

to concil ation and the conciliation having been failed

the

(entral

Government on consideration of the fa lure report

made this reference for adjudication

The main gne ance of

the 2nd Partv Union is that the names of those workers who

are eligible to be enlisted in the mam list has been exjud"d

without any reason They have also claimed for arrear back

wages

3 The 1st Party Management have filed their Written State

ment Their case is that the question of preparation of the list

of the carso handling workers was finalised in the year 1981

9o it was not open for the Workmen to raise the s^me after

lapse of time According to them this being a stale proceeding

i° not maintainable Tt has been further pleaded that in the

settlement da'ed 25-4 1985 the 2nd Party Union having ad

ni'f'ed that their claim with the Paradip Poit Trust had been

settled they are now stopped to raise the self samp issue

before thi* Tribunal As regards the list it is stated th^f the

"xistina workeis in the mam list as well as in the subsidiary

1'st are more than the actual requirement as recommended

bv the Abiaham Committee appointed by the Government

of Tndn Moreovei

when the- demands have been made by

the different Unions contiollma the existing carco hindbn¹*

workers for complete the present demand made bv the ?nd

partv-Unicn is imcalled for The demand for de casmhsation

of the workets was the subiect matter of S I P "No 3276 of

19S7 before the Hon ble Supreme Court Havmsr heard fhe

rnrrr, thf Hon We Anex Court diected the Centnl Govern

ment to annomt i Conm ttee of the "xnerts with Hon'ble

Ju^rtic° H R Khanna (i retired incl»e of the Supieme Court)

a« Chin man of the Committee to <*o into the matter and

rlec'de^fhe controveisy So according to •h» 2nd Partv Union

m this Mew of the matter there is no scope for admd cation of

the nresent d'snu'e r-»<^d on b^hilf of the 2nd Pith Union

On facK it is submitted on behalf of the 1st Pirty Mam<*ement

tliⁿt

f>T preparation of the li«+ of the wo kers, arrangement

v* as pud,, in consultation with tht m ijor unions and petitioners

n OJC

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"men^f aheady made

bee usi

( vouiii \tdd <u i isettfe woikna sysicm Regarding

cxc'usioi (i n nv ot tm woikii^ fiom the c irgo handling

cherry

it is p'eadwd *hat condit ons/qmiifica'ions for en

lisfina the vvrrk-is in the scheme have been provided

on the basis of d (ieruit

minutes

diseii'sions

held

between the par! it s One of >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 l l 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 c^f Orissa in t\o wnt pjt'ions

nam^lv O J C

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 —

Whether the refeience is mamta mbleⁿ

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)nd^c 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 °

Whethei all the disputes leferred foi adiudication

have been Settled n T D Misc Ca-,e No 5/83 before

th" Piesiding Officer Labour Court Bhubaneswer⁹

Whether the demands made bv the woikmen as con

tuned in then Charter o<" dem nd dated 8 6 1984

are justify d⁹

VI To what relief if any the Workmen are en* tied⁹

5 The 2nd Part' Union hi<e examined 10 witnesses and

have exhibi ed i number of documents wheie the 1st Party-

Man ieern"nt has examined only on^ witness They have also

flaced lei nnce on some document-

6 Before <»O'na to the m'r^ of ,he case some admitted

fjefs aie to be mentioned heie Awaid was pa-sed by the

Pre«idmt CfleM

Industrial Tribunal on 24 1 1992 In that

Award aU th" T^csres <v^pre an wred in favour o^f the 2nd

PcrivfJncn

The Tribunal had parsed an ord^r to enl it 78

n r^rns in th" Main lis and 78 p isor¹- <n the sub d ary list

I V TnHi I J vhi'f pas^nj the Avaid had dueced for piy

r^ "t of wT<>ei fcr 15 <iavs in averaee per mon'h to the workers

•uficf d in Anncxuie I of the Chai'er of demin 1 (T^vt

13)

fiom T S 1988 the d ite (f whic'i tli- 1 • P"rty Manae=m»nt

P bh'i^rd i fr h h\t of workeis after making verification and

<v>rrn) .im

of fi> cl recti n of tl e Hon bl" Court pn* ed on

O r e

lⁱ;7^/S0 The Aw mi of •h° Tribunal wa« rhallpnapj

In the /s^f Pirty Afanaeem-n< I-foie fie Hon ble H "h Court

in O K

409/ Co 1997 The Hov b'e Hi ah Couit of Or>s«a

n'PTtefi to t"t )s'd" >h° A w d p?<-'ed by the Pr--,idin"

f^fficur Jndn fr T! Tiib'nal so fa d^{r f}he d rec'ion was given

to fV 1st P i v M na.'ment to <nh t (he 156 wck"rs shovvi

>n Amirxme J rC U to the Charter of D m-nd (Fxt 13)

Th" Hoi We Hi»h rou * v re iKo -ilsi«ed to set aside the

^rdet o^f tl' Tribunal for rnvmont of wa"es for 15 elavs n

SITT--¹ p<>' m^nth to which all ihe wcrVers indicated m

Antipxm»T to tli« ChaitT of the ('emind from 20 8 1981

Whrl( c-tfri" ?« *° the Awmrl of *1 e Tnhnnal *h» HOT W»

}l'"h Cnuit \ rre nlei»«d to further order iliat thp mnttpi be

rccons deiod b tie Tnbuml in tie 1 "lit ot the o b ^ m t n n

tnsdf The parties ware al«o gven opportunity lo adduce ad-

6864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

LPAKT II—SEC. 3(ii)3

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<amuied

one witness

30-10-1998 The persons who had appeared before the Hon'ble

Court in OJ.C. 80 and 81 of 1994 did not appear before

this Tribunal to raise their prievince iir-pite of d rec'ion of

the Hon'blc Court and issuance of notics from the Tribunal.

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

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

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 pre^rent 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

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

t ^{j ,}e p r c s e n^{t 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

-, Vn^ThU

Ts<!Ue

i<! t h e

m a i r l

T's"e

Tt i<! t n e ense of 'he

2nd Patty.Un.on, that the names of total number of 156

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

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.

"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 riSF 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 n^f th« Tribunal orrterirm er>-

i;otm"-n nf 7S ^rso"': in th~ main 1i«t (Xist-D and

7 0 persons in the subsidiary l>'st (J ;sf-TD can not be

substained"

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"C^f were

W^ork<"nre^f-.r^{^ foi,1v}^lo n r^{period prior}

to fie cut off date re

1-11-1977. In my opinion that, is

6865

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 <o be listed worked far a faily long prior to the

cut off dated i.e. 1-11-1977.

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

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 o^c 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 w l 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 l s Trib,I11a, „.,, thm

d o e ^, mf

mem

ffm(

the r.nse of the 2nl Party-Union has been established. The

3^97 GI/2001—2

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

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

25-3-19S9 and it was decided that the workers must havj

worked in loading and unloading at the Port prior

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^ levered accordinelv.

S K

DHAL, Pres'dinp Officer

6866

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.

1. The

President, Shramik

Sahakari Samiti Ltd.,

PO : Dalli-Raihara,

Durg

. Management.

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 ID. 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 S^feel 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<jemenf

of BSP and the workman. He wns the empiovee of Shranvk

Sfhakari Sirniti ltd

He hid the remedy to challenge the

orrtr-r of

tf-'sfn'^snf from ^rvic"' )"id"^r t!i<- nro»'isip-ic o^f

MP Ovonprativ- Societies Act and not under the provisions

"f T.r> 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

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,

Co. Sahadev Sahu,

Tabler Set,

At & PO : Dalli-Raihara,

Durg.

. .

Workman.

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

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.,

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

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

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 <n

the Induiti lal Dispute between the employers in relation

to ihe nicHia?em_nt of Kudiemukh Iron Ore Co and their

woikman, which was received by the Cential Government

on 23-10-2001

[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

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

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.

6869

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<s

oidei dated 19th Apnl 1999 passed orders holding that the

Domestic Enquuy is fan and piopei Alter this 1 have heaid

the leameu counsel appealing for the parties and I have

carefully peiused the records and the enquiry proceedings

li 1-ust party union workm.u have filed wntten buel

Accoidmg to the facts of tne case as alleged by the manage-

ment miscorduct s not proved b> 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

Priding Office

\ev\ Delhi, ihe 29th Octobu, 2001

;i99- !n pursuance of Sal 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 th^a

Indu>,ti al Dispuic between the emplojeis in relation to the

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 M R u. GOVER1NME ^T INDUSTRIAL

iRIBUNAL-eUM-LABOUR COUR1 JABALPUR

CASE NO CGFT|LC|RH60|87

Piesidmg Officei

Shu K M Rai

The President,

H I P

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?"

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

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 <he piovisions of ccttified standing orders

applicable to the compinv The chargesheet was served on

the wo'kman and his terW was found unsatisfactory

The

Dcpiitment 1 Enquiu wns tonducled

igimst him m HIM

and

f"ir m i"nei nnd the Fnquny Oflicsi, aflei considenng

the mateual on ricoid, held the charges proved agninst h(m"

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

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

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

It hob alicady been held bj th.s Tubunal on 13 3-92 tm'

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 o^f

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

accordmglv

answeied

9 Co|i\ if the aw uJ be senj 'o '

inment of Ihdn

MiniMry of 1 lbour is pei mli s

k M RAI, Piesiding OITieei

New Delhi

the 30th October, 2001

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

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.-<uanee o! Seciion 17 ol the

Jndustiial Dispute;, Aet, 1947 (14 oi L947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award o! the

Central Government Industiial fiibunal, Mumbai as

shown in the Amexure in Ihc Industrial Dispute bet-

ween the employers in relation to the management

HINDUSTAN " PETROLEUM

CORPORATION

LTD. and their workman, whiclv. was received by the

Central Government on 30-10-2001.

[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

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

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.

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—3

: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

conducted against the workman

was as per the Principles of

Natural Justice ?

2. Whether the findings of the inquiry

Yes.

officer aie perverse ?

REASONS

6. Admittedly workman Shri Vidh>e was

|.vorking as

Senior

Boiler

Technicati

[Mumbai Refinery,

and that on inquiry

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

•

|.trd Stamping Works Ltd. Vs.

TVir W^rtrk-

jr.en 1°63 It LLJ p, 367 pointed out t^a^f 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 ex^atTiit>p'i-or<^v'^Ti^<m-

ly in the nresen^e of thp "^>r¹owe

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

6874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA X 1923

{PART H-SEC. 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.

Workman stated in his affidavit that the

incjuiry officer Mr. Mahajan.and the Present-

ing Office!* Mr. R. B. Mehta are subordinate

to Chief General ..Manager, the Discjp3^:naiy

Au'horiu and that^hey were influenced by

him, and added that, there was- no indepim-

& nt inquiry officer and therefore the inquiry

vitiates. He has averred that the Presenting

Officer Mr. Mehfa was against him which he

had nnnri<5pd to the inquiry officer bv^fhe letter

dtd. 9th July, 99 (r»a. 53, Exhibit-14). How-

ever that was not taken on record and further

PoWtfd out that the Presenting Officer h'm-

<SMf rave evidence in favour of th<* rnaiage-

fien* ftid th^t the nrocpdure of holding fie

inquiry* was irregular as sometimes inquiry

officer asked auctions to the management

witnesses and at the same time took his crⁿss-

e^Tnini'ion thereby

inauirv itself was full

of infirmities. The Learned O W S P I

Shri

S^want for the workman inviting attention of

tbi¹- tribunal to^fh? inninrv nroepdinos filed

bv n?tv, t>CT 86 tO 106 CRxhib^;M4 Of vtrh\r>\\

r^-nir** fiVd by the management

pg. 63-89

fn-rhiUit O¹?¹* imon, which, thp mnnao^iTtpnt

rpTi«<. in en fir as fairness

of innnirv vide

might's /•pYnihi*-'^4).

<nihtr>}tfprl

thit the

manner in which the inquiry was held was

ahcoiiT+pH sfn*n?e

and unknown

to the

established procedure of domestic inquiry. On

7-rrusal of* the "innnirv procepdings it is seen

innhirv was hpid on 9 dates commencing

fm-^'7 1-Q9"end^;n« 30'h Tulv, 1999 and on

all thes-c dates, inquiry officer asked questions

to' Presenting

Officer,

witnesses of the

rianagement" and also the workman at one and

•h^'siffme time, thereby the very purpose of

efmh Examination has been defeated.

When

no/mally charges are framed

against the

deHnauent workman, the management has

to.lead evidence to prove the same, and

her^aiter the workman, had to lead evdence

['i tobtittal.

However, in the case »n hand,

it is seen the inauirv officer did not follow the

""•v>p^r--]roeedure. The Learned Counsel Mr.

^ w n t at th's- iunc⁺ure argued-that. in a larg";

,j i j only ot cases employees are likely to b§

ignored and so it is necessary to expose them

to the risk of cross-examination in the mariner

adopted in -the present inquiry

proceedings

and therefore the present inquiry.proceedings

constituted infirmity and therefore it certainly

vitiates. He has relied on Associated Cement

Cos." Vs. Their Workmen

1963 II hU pg.

3^ci6. 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 infirmitvldefec^fs.

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

Pnc^j^{^31}^{tfcg decision rpiip.-i}^{wa^}

COnC^rnitia

trt

thr- 1,=>T!<niT

niT^cfi-fj

*r> he

TI i « o <">m pnt.

7. The Learned Counsel Mr. Birajdar invit-

ing attention of this Tribunal to the cross-

examination of workman para 30 and lengthy

Statement of Claim wherein much has been

recited on so called welfare activities done by

hnn in the capacity of trade

union leader,

urged vuth for force that- workman admittedly

did not complain in writing to the inquiry

oilicer nor the management on alleged record-

ing incorrect proceedings, therefore hardly to

believe that the proceedings was incorrect. It

is to be noted that the workman in the second

6375

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.

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.

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.

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, 91, 92 on receiving the attendance record.

far tb» engaging Defence Counsel, workman admits

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&

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.

The management to lead evidence

justify its

action.

Mumbai

Dated : 14th Susptemher, 2001.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presid'ng Officer

New Delhi, the 30th October, 200!

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

the

Ahn°xure

the Industrial dispute between ihe ^mpl wer<

in rela'ion to the National, Alumrmim Co.

Ltd. anil- their workmen winch wt« ^<r^;vcJ

by >he Central Governtfifent'o'n J-9-10-2001.

[No. L-29011l41|W|IRnvn

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

6876

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 :

Shri S K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Branch).

Presiding Officer. C.G.I.T,-cum-Labour>

Conn, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTE

CASE NO.

329|2001

Date of

conclusion

of hearing

27th September, 2001

Date of Passing Award 10th October, 2001

BETWEEN

The Management of the General

Manager,

National Aluminium Company Ltd..

Captive Power Plant, Angul-759145.

1st Party-Management.

AND

Their Workmen, represented through.

The General Secretary/ NATOO Shramik,

Congress Union, NALCO Nagar.

Angul-759145.

• • 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

None.—For the 1st Party-Management.

None.—For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry

of Labour, in exercise of r>owefs conferred by

Clause'Cd) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1-947 fl4 of 1947) have referred the

following dispute for adjudication vide their

Order No.

L-2901l|41|99|IR(M>,

dated-

15-02-20C0 :—

"Whether the action of the Manacement

in no allotting the quarfers' to Shri

B. D, Sahoo, 'employee of C.P.P\.

NALCO is justified ? If not, to

what

relief

the workman is en-

titled to V

2. The reference was made in the year

2000.

Wlrte marine reference, th^ Cavern-

thent of India

(Ministry of Lkbdiir) had

irnittiaTeld ThF 2nd Party-Union to "file

their

Claim Statement.

From ttye date of receipt

of the reference¹ the'TriburiaTal'fco directed.by

issums notice¹ to the 2nd^p F#rty-U.nibn "to file

the Claim Statement, 'but the 2nd, ^{trty-

Union did not take stay step, l^lfe representa^:

tive of the "1st Party-Management has made

his appearance on 7-6-2000. Btith the 'porfibn

have been set ex parte.

3, The dispute has been raised on behalf

of the 2nd Party-Union.

Unless, thp Claim

Statetfncnt h filed, t!here is rio scope rpr tlje

1st Party^Managemerit "to ffe^Jiitfzt V/ritten

Sta lenient. As the '2nd Party-TJnfon has not

taken -\»y hfep and he'hksnbt fited his ^aim

Statement, it citn^lilor rjeⁿSaid"'that¹ the demand

of the 2tfd ^ P&rry-U'nibh is justffled,

l/niess

the lnater'cils placed before the Tribunal, it

can n6t he" said^!tHat the action taken by th?

1st Pat'ty-Ma'n^agemant as referred to by the

Government of India is unjustified.

So'in that

case, it c in be- said that the action of trie^[Vit

Party-Managftme*itⁱ nbt allotting trie' quarter

to Shri B. D. $ttfoo>^JemiilqVfee' of C^T*'

NACCO.' is Jusfllfea.

3. Reference is answered accordingly.

S. Kt DHAK Presidihg Officer

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3203.—In pursuance of Section 17,

of the^J Industrial Disputes' Act, 1.94.7 (XA o,

1947), Ihc Central Crpvernmerit herebv utib

lishes tr|C Award of thd Central GovClmfoS-

trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur

ai shown in the Annexure, in the Industriai

dispute beiweert the employers in relatfcfn Jo

the imVriacremefir of, pAtljF''^fijjSs QJ" l^Sp',

and their" workmen which was received by

the Ceri'.ra! Government on 17-10--20Q1:

[No. L-29012]137|98-IR(M)T

B. H. VAW& Ufldcr SecV.

6877

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUB

COURT, JABALPtTR, M.P.

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

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.

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

BSP, PO : Dafii-Rajhara,

AWARD

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

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

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.

3. It is admitted f&Ct that the workman was

never employed by th£ Bhilai Steel Plant, He

was employed, by the management of Sbrjmik

Sahakari Saijti'iti Ltd,, a c&nffacTOr ot I?SP at

Dalli-Rajhara Mines. In this way. thfi^ wal

no relationship of Master and Servant T&jJJjefS"

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.

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.

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Govern-

ment of India, Ministry o| Labour, New Delhi,

for publication as ger ri}le.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2001¹

S.O. 32O4.—Ih pur.ijuanse^ of. Section 17

of the lnd#triai ^spujep Acf« 1947, .(14 of

1 9 4 7)/ J (

th^( C?p^a'l, tymqtfmt. hjRtebv • pub-

lishes rtpe4waj;^ o|th^ Central Govtv Indus-

trial Tribunal-cumrX.aboiH'-Coiirt, JTabal^ur as

shown in the Annex^rej. in thejtndiistrial, dis-

pute between the employers in relation to the

management of Dalli Mne§ p^t BSP aj^d

their Workm^ d wh|cfr r wajs /} reeved' by th'e

Central Government on 17*10-2^01.

B. M, DAVI0, iwdw Sfecy.

6878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAJlAtANA 3, 1923

[PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INUSTRTAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOTJR

COURT, JABALPUR, M.P.

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

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,

Durg.

• •

Management.

2. The Mines Manager, Dalli Mines of

BSP. PO : Dalli-Rajhara, Drug.

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 ?"

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.

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

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.

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

answered

accordingly.

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Govern-

ment of India Ministry of ^Labour, New Delhi,

for publication as per rule.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

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

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 •:

S. N. Saundankar.—Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGTT-2J25 of 2001

Employers in relation to th? . management.of

Mumbai Port Trust.

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust

Mumbai 400 038.

6879

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 :

For the Employer.—Mr. Umesh Nabar Advo-

cate.

For the Workmen.—No Appearance.

Mumbai, Dated 11th October, 2001

AWARD

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

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.

"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?"

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

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

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

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

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.

[No. L-31012/2/200MR(M)J

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[58 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of

M|s. Natwar Parikh Ind. Ltd.

Mis. Natwar Parikh Ind. Ltd.,

Natwar Parikh House,

107|109, P.D. Mello Road,

Mumbai-9.

AND

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

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

clause (d) of sub-sec<ion d') and sub-section 2(A)

of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispu'es Act, 1947,

have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

"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

Y"*J?^P^{V a i d}y ^a

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&ulJSp0<setf'¹&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

Shriranj.Maujfji^

May it plftw th+ff H«>n. Cow¹,

Be pleased- to pass Award in name of settlement

dated 10-5-2001 arrived at tlfldetf'Setfiotf 1^(3)' of

ID. Act 1947 between the partiesHerfl&r

Mumbai.

Dated : 5-10-2001.

(Sd^

(A&ijJ&'&idtaj:)

(Sd^)

(Shrjra^ M&upsQ

Concerned Workman

(Sd.-)

(V. P. .Viydya)

Advocate, for th<f Party.

(Sd.)

5-10-2001.

Memorandum #f Settlement

Memorandum of

Settlement dated 10th

May,

2001 arrived at Mumbai, under Sectitttft f2(T)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947'befqtfc' tile

Regional

Labour Coiiininsipner (Central),"Mumbai bv^r' an

Industrial Dspute of alleged illegal disrtilssal

from

service of Shri Shnram R Maurya, former Sugervi-

wr of M|i. NaJvar Pankh Ibdt^tries Ltd. '

Parties Present

Sim C. N Meoon,

General Manager (P & A)

M's Natvar Pankh Industnes Ltd;

AND, .

Shri Shriram R. Mawrya,

Fonder Supervisor

Short Recital

Sthri ,Shr«am;JR< Mamya raised an industrial, dis-j

pute^yn^ti^-^llWfcWnt^tf^s. ^NaWr Parikn

Industries

Ltd, vide his

r^rjresentatipn^

dated

18-11-1999 over his alleged illegal dismissal

fropi

employment.

The sajq* depute ,w|| take^ ,95 file

by the Assistant Labour Contniissidncr (Ccntfal)^,

Mumbai who held joint discussionsjconciliation pro-

ceedings on several

dates.

As the jpajjics^.were

hold ng divergent views and amicable settlement was

not found feasible Jhe Assistant Labour Commis-

sioner (Central), Mumbai submitted his report on

failure of CoijciliHtion.^ to¹ the Secretary, Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delfci vi^e

his

letter No. B Al£(Cj-r8(:i8)|200O dl. 29-9-200O|

15-2-2001

Later on, both the parties approached

1£e Regional

Labqui

Commissionei

(Central),

Miimbai vide theif letter dated 9-5-2001 requesting

his to reopen the dispute, and, intervene in the matter

in order to bring an. arqicabj^ setilemeijt.

The Regional Labour

Commissioner

(Central) <

Mumbai intervened in the above said dispute t and

held conciliation " proceedings on 10-5-^001 when

both the particsi V^re

prtscjftt.

After, prolonged

coneiKafiori^T prpceedwgs, the , following terms of

settlement wa$ arrived^ at upder section 12(3) of the

Industrie Pi&putcfc Act, 194T as'full and final settle-

ment.

Tefrtas of 5et|lemeiit

1 The m^fl#fi$ent agreed to pay A total amount

of Rs. 75r000r'(Rupees!Seventy five Thousand ®n|y^,

to Sjhri Shrjr^m'R. Mffarya, former ^opetvisor toward^,

the terminal befafefltj whloh irichjde one-month nqticc.

paj', retrenchmwxt( coarpensatior^j gratuity, bonus,

Leave Travel⁾AUjpw.a»pfi and> exTgratia,

2. Th« worJcman^tias agropd.to withdraw his indus-

trial dispute whieh.has already bech made a failure

by the Assistant^uLaboiir Colfftmissiond^ (Cfen^aT)-L.

Mumbai. He has also agreed' not to make any

claim for re-m^l5tatement|rif-e|ttpl6yment and any other

financial claim in lespect of his employment.

3. Both the parties agreed to ^suljmtt implementa-

tion report by 30th June,

2001 faiung which by

either the parties, the 'settlement Would be deemed td

have been imp^ejpentcd.

Representing Manage men* : Representing Workman :'

(Sd|)

(Shri C. N Menon)

General Manager (P & A)

M|S. Natvar Parikh Irdi,isUie»

Ltd

Representing Workman :

(Sdl)

(Shri Shriram R. Maurya)

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 <lrt in teim cf tlv Memordadum <^f Settlement

C. 't.j 10-5-2001

evented

befo«e the Regional

L.boui

Ccnrribsonei

(Central), Mumbai, I have

leceived

th^:s

day

11-5-2001 a sum of

Rs 75.000 by (.htqat, No 952339 and 003133

21-5-200¹

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 V H IndiiVrv- UC , the bieak-up of which is

b4ow :

'• ,

Bonus

Leave Tnve' A^-i-t-jpcc

Gratu'ty

Pe lenchmenf Cumne'-saton

One Month S^lrrv 11 lieu of

fcx-Gr.iti 1 payment

To'-'

Deduct oils

NJ.l

1,398.00

1,006 00

Rs. 13,770.00

Rs. 13,667 00

Notice Rs. 2,927.00

Rs. 42,232.00

Rs 75,000 00

Nil

Rs. 75,000 00

CRuc "os Seventy Five Thousand only)

[n view of Ih'i settlement I hereby confirm that

I h""'" no| mv other cVi'm

monetary or otherwise

against the company including that of 1 e-employmcnt

o- rf> 'n^rt3te^rne'it and rw complaint dated 18-11-99

rn."d^ before t>v

A<-^Q-''-tinf Labour

Commissioner

T'en'r.¹!) Mumbn⁵ hcrcb\ stands withdiawn.

(Shriram Mourya)

W ness : (Sd.l)

T > ^

11-5-2001.

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

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, wef

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

The above mentioned industrial dispute between the

parties mentioned therein a^re referred for adiudjeation

under Section

1 0 ( l ) ( d ) of th~ Industrial Disputes

A.ct, 1947 bv Governnipnt of India. Ministr\

Labour. New Delhi vide its oider No L-]2012/223/

98-TR(B-n

dated 11-01 1999

to the

Industrial

Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Subsequently under an appro-

priate order it has be^n transferred to this Tribunal

for pioper adjudication The dispute pertains termi-

nation of one Shri H^man' T P->rekh wef

16-05-97

PIS is mentioned in the schedule to the order of

reference The exact >erm<: of reference is as under •

"Whether the ar+hn o< the management of State

Bank of India, Ahmedabad is iti-tified in

terminatin" th<" s^n'j^es 01" Shri Hemint J

Parckh w.e f 1(S-')5 '">7⁹ Tf not \vhr" relief

the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

6832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3. 1923

[PARr II—Six. 3(ii)]

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

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.

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 deeper 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 cent 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

The Kaira branch of tl e fust party bank has again

summoned the second pasty workman as v.atei sprink-

ler, that the second rnuy workman has v orked¹ as

water sprinkler for 54 divs ie from 23-04-1990 to

15-06-1990,

that the second party

workman

also

worked for a dav on 19-0^ 1990 as a' watchman; that

the Kaira Branch Manager has issued a certificate

dated 06-09-1990 to that effect: that the second party

workman

IIPS

«,orked

as badli

watchman on

19-06-1990 and as ualei sprinkler fiom 28-04-1991

to 28-05-1991 for 31 days, and Ciom 29-05-1991 1o

14-06-1991 for 17 dn\s; that thns the second party

Workman had worked for total 186 davs as per certi-

ficate dated 06-01-1991 issued bv the Kaira Bianch

Manager that though the second pprfy workman has

worked for 186 days ot the Kaira Branch o' fh? first

Dartv bank, he was not absorbed as a regular employee

of the fi^rst party bank for the reasons best Known

to them.

The second party workman had aeain applied with

the first party bank for job, but the Zonal Office of

the bank vide Us letter dated 27-04 1991 informed

the second rartv wo'kmin that s^;nce the name of the

secondp arty worman h nheadv in the wi^nc list.

he k not considered fit for the interview call in terms

of his ppn]icatior>- tint the

Kaira Branch Manaser

asain issued a certificate date! 19-05-199"' showing

thnf the workman Vns worked for ]^9 davs UP¹O

16-05-1992 on petty • nsh bins with the first partv

h-nV Th» second nartv vv>-u-kmi/. w;ntp n leftpr dated

1Q.09-19Q4 to Tb» 7on'«l Office AmbnwacTi. Ahmeda-

bad requesting tV first mrt^ bink to inform him

rpanrd^;np bis position in the vnifi"<* li«t tvronrM by

them in terms of inte<-«i"w so thnt ho may know

where he stands in the interview and also produced

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

09-04-1997 and 10-01 1997 to 15 05-1997.

The second party workman also wiote a letter dated

16 06-1997 to the first pirty bank stating that he has

worked for 186 and 160 days in the Kaira Branch

between 08-07-1988 to 14-06-1991 as a daily wager

in comparison to the othei selected employees who

have setved lesser days than him; that he is entitled for

absorption in the bank as a recilar employee as

peon, tihat the first party bank vide its letter 28-6-1997

informed the second party woikman that the list of ex-

temporary employees have been cancelled. The second

party workman has submitted that the action of th:

bank cancelling the said wait list is illegal, arbitrary

and capricious; that the second party workman has

rendered his services to the first party bank prior to

the advertisement and therefore he is a senior worker;

that the second party workman has worked as water

sprinkler, watchman as well as peon in the first partv

bank; that the second party workman has also served

;n three branches of the first party bank namely Kaira

Branch,

Anand

Bianch

and Vittkii Udyog Nagar

Branch, Voilagh Vidyanaeir; that the service record,

of the second partv workman is clean, blotless and

without any blemish and that he has worked to the

entire satisfaction of his superiors without any cause

for grievance in all these three branches That the

second party workman has worked for 240 days in a

calander year at Anand Branch and therefore he has

acquired the status of a permanent workman as per

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;

that the first party bank cannot terminate the services

of the second party workman without following the

due procedure of law; that the first party bank has

abruptly stopped assigning the work to the workman

from 16-05-1997 without any reason or excuse; that

non-absorption and

non-regularisation of

the

serv^;ces of the second party workman, the first party

has exploited the economic helplessness and unemploy-

ment of the second party workman; that the second

party workman has rendered the services to the first

party bank from 08-03-1988 and thus reached at an

advanced age: that the first party bank has ieopardised

every employment opportunity

of the second

party

v-orkman: that while terminating services orally from

16-05-1997. the first partv bank has not considered

the aspect that the second partv workman has rendered

the service of the first Dartv bank since 08-03-1988

and thus the first partv bink has exploited the second

nirtv workman- that the act^n of the first pnrtv bank

in terminating the services of the second party work-

6883

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 depar^f

mental enquny prior to his illegal termination, that the

first party bank has

violated all

the principles

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

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

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

4 The lust party bark ha* filed its reply

the

statement of claim vide Ex 6 inter aha denying the

various contentions raised by the second party woik-

man and have stated that the second party workman

wag called foi woik as per their lequiremcnt on a 1/1

tun; scale bas » in the kaua Blanch as a swecper-

cum wdtennan ana watci sprinkler, that the second

nut¹)

woikman

ha-> \n ked from

8-3-1988

.5-6-1988

tci

°o

days

and

from

01-05-19^9

15-0'-1989

for

43 days

..nd

from 23 04-1990 1.'

15-06-1990

for 54

days, that the second pirty workman has woiked from

08-08-1988 to 14-06-1991 in the Kaira branch

different times and under different designations foi

186 davs on a 1 3rd t iae sc tie basis that the second

party workman has woiked as a casual labomer on

a daily wage basis in the Kaira blanch for 139 days

that when any work is taken up on l/3rd time scale

basis, the working hours ait fpi about 2 to 2 1 2 h¹ J ,

that there was an agi cement between fiist party bant

naregi ment ind Union on all India

basis

that

diffeient temporal y and casual workers may get full

time or part-time employment, that m that agreement

theie was one scheme and as per that scheme it was

decided to make one pool foi getting the pcimaivni

workers and their qualifications, age etc. were decided

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/

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 l ^u >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

I lie fust par \ bark In

pioduccd nve docu-

ments vide Ex 7 I x 7/1 < IV. -cltkment between

hrst parfj btnk jnd A ' In' o SBI Suff I deration

dated 17 1 1 - W ⁷ T

7 / 2 is also I settlement bet-

wc i tie tlsst pan\

'-ink end Ali

India SBI Staff

led-'-tun dated )

1^9!

7 3 interview sheet

of first party bank Ex 7 4 i, th>- cucular of hrst pariy

bank dated 5-2-1987 LA

7 "> i also i c rcular of

hrst party bank datea * > !9)6

5 The concerned workman Shu Hcmanl Kumar

Jayamlal Parekh his examined himself on oath wlf

Ex S cUed 31-1-200) inter aln reiterating the facts

stated 1.1 his s^ratement ot claim

Shri Hemant

Kama

I Pciekh has beer cross

examined on 21-2 2000 at d 'us s'lkd 1,1 his cross-

exammition^fhat it is net ti ic thu the bank was tak-

ing Lm for work as and v h^n lequn-ed b\ them He

has stittj tb it he wa-. w 3*¹ mg ccntmuouslv and that

he was a permanent vdilmm of the bank , that he

had applied in icspome «o the td\crtisernent for be-

comin« permanent and that lie was .nremewej and

that his name was m UK 1' t thit halt the oei^ons

whose names were m he list w,r^ ibsorbcd, but his

number did not come, that tht first mrtv bank has

scrappvd the list aftd

evc^ \ci s that the second

ptrt\ wrrknm Ins fnrth r stitut m hi -ios> exami-

nation th it at pic ent he is doing labour woik and

68g4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ i'JRAHAYANA 3, J923

[P^RT II—SLC

3(<i)!

getting Rs. 30 to 35 us daHy wage and that when he

was doing work as

a liaiiy wager he was getting

Rs. 25, but he n j j demanded more wages.

b. fixe second part} workman ha-s closed his oral

evidence vide Ex. 13.

7. Theieaitei the second party workman has pro-

duced hve docuinents vide Jbx i^zi. Ex. 14/1 is the

xerox copy oi bankers cheque oi Rs. /25 paid by

the lirst patty to the second paity ualed 7-5-1996.

Ex. 14/2 is the xerux copy oi banixrV ohtque of

Rs. toO paiU by first paity t¹.. second party dated

10-9-19y6. Ex. 14/3 is the xerox copy of voucher

for Rs. 575 dated 3-ib-t J9h. Ex. 14/<i- is the xerox

copy of voucher for Rs. 900 uated io-12-li.96. hx.

14/5 is the xerox copy of backers' cheque or. Rs. 125

dated 13-1-1997.

8. The first pany bunk

has examined cue Shri

Jitendra Kumar

Mul undbhai

Desai on oath on

28-8-2000 vide Ex. 16. He ha, <tatv.d on oath m his

chief examination,

"he facts st'it.d

in tiu written

statement of the first patty bank

It was stated in

his cross examination

fhat he is working i s a Dy.

Manager with th? fir4 part/ bank a> Ahmedabad for

the past 7 yei.s : that every Branch Manager is having

powers to keep daily wager: and that they are send-

ing a list ro the Rsg'o ul Office s>tat^;r>g as to Nnv

many suclh worker¹- 'OJZ tak^i up for job. He has stated

that the agreements dated lft-'-1933 and 27-10-1978

are not produced before this Court and that he will

be producing the said agreements.

Thereafter tlv croas-examination was adjourned for

producdon of document? .vhich vva^ continued on

25-9-2000. Shri Jitendra Kumar Mukundbhai Desai

has admitted in his cross-exanvnution that t ..; con-

cerned workman was not celled for^;nterv^;ew. He has

further admitted 'hat the concerned Workman'? ser-

vices were terminated in lieu of seiilem^ii which

is produced vide Px. "7 and that wh'lc temmntirg

the services of .'he second party workman he wa^ not

paid any notice* pay/retrenchmtit cvmpensal'ori or

he was not given any other benefits.

9. The first pirty bank has produced the <ettle-

ments vide Ex. 73. Ex. 2V1 is (he settlement bet-

ween SBI and Ail India Sf'iie P/"ik Sf.^fF Federation

dated 16-7-1988. hx. 23/2 r the settlement between

SBI and All India Stnte Bant Staff Federation dated

27-10-1988. The first parv ban!' has closed its o'-al

evidence vide Ex. 26 dl. 12-3-2001. Thereafter there

was one amendment fiprvTcation filed on 10-7-2001

vide Ex. 27, which wa, allowed by this Court

10. I have gone ihroug'i die t'Ci.ids .nd papers of

the case and have considered <!v anuunenrs of both

the parties and rind that the icfcience is required to

be rejected. In view of the fact that the. second paiiy

workman was not a* pernmont cmp!o\ee if the first

party bank and that the first paity bank has not issued

any appointment letter to the second oarly workman

and

that

the

second

party

workman

has

not

completed

continuous

service

240

days

a year and

that

the

second party workman was taken uo as a stop-gap

arrangement by the first party bank. The ca^rc of the

first party bank is that they entered into seitii-ment

with the Un'on and accordingly ar advertisement was

placed and the second partv' was -ailed for Interview

and was placed in the waiting bst which was scrapped

in the year 1997 ; and th-crciore

tne second party

workman w'as not tuken upon a permanent post with

the first party bank, The -econj party workman has

failed to prove his case that he ha^ woiked cor.tinuv.as-

ly ior 240 days in a >ear with the iir,t party bank

and that he w^s a permanent employee of ihe bank

and that the fiist pany bank has indulged into unfair

labour practice. On the contrary, the first party bank

has entered mto various settle ;tents with the Union

and accoidmgly made a tenou^ attempt to offer per-

manent jobs to the temporary c.i:pl^f^e-^ rs per lh«^

terms

that

f,.*t^flemcnt

with

the

A!l

India

SBI

SI all'

' Federation.

Ihe

settle-

ments are

produced by tJic first paity

bank vide

Exs. 23/1 and 23/2. In order to prove their ca«e, the

first party has produced relevant settlements, circulars

and interview sheet vit'e Hx. 7. fpk,r!g into conside-

ration, the documentary evdcitce as vveii as oral evi-

dence and also under the facts and c'lcumstances iiar-

rated herein above. I am of the opinior thai the pre-

sent reference is required io be rejected. The second

party workman has not been able to prove his c ^ee

as per the statement of cla'nii and even the documen-

tary evidence produced by him and irom the oral

evidence on oath vide Ex. 5 p>H Ex. 8, respectively

that he was a permanent employee of the fir«t party

bank and that he has completed continuous tcrv'ce of

240 days in a year with the first party bank and that

be was entitled to be givri permanent work by the

first party bank. On the contrary he has admitted in

his cross-examination at Ex. S on oath that to be-

come permanent he has applied with the fiist party

oank in response to the advertisements and that his

name was in the waiting list and that half of the

persons in the waiting list were taken up by the first

party and that he was not taken up for job by the

first party bank. He has further stated in his exami-

uation-in-chief that his vwrting list number was 707

and that in his cross-exarninntion he has admitted that

waiting list was scrapped after seven years and that

his number did not come up for permanent appoint-

ment. In these promises I fas- following order :

ORDER

The reference (ITC) No. 31 of 1999 is heieby re-

jected and the action of the management of Stale

Bank of India, AhmedabJi is justified in terminating

the services of Shri Hemant J. Pareka v 'th effect fr^'ii

16-5-1997. The workman Shri Hemant J. Parrkh is

not entitled to any relief. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad, 3Kt August. 2001.

N. J. SHELAT, Industrial Tribunal

6885

New Delhi, the 3(Xh October, 2001

SO. 3208.- In pi,..uj>~ce i-t Section

17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ol 1947), tL;

Central Government hereby publisher the a^nrd ol me

Central Government Industrial fiibunai, rNagpur as

shown in the Annexure m the Industrial Dispute bet-

ween the employers in relation to tne management oi

State Bank oi India and thek workman, which ww-

received by the Central Government on 29-10-21)01.

[No. L-120J2/334/97-JR(L-I)j

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Gilie*.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

THE CENTRAL

GOVERNMfNl

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Piesiding Officer.

Refeience No. CGIT-55/2000

STATE BANK OF INDIA

AND

VINOD BHAURAOJI PARATE

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, Ne^

Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause

(d) of Sub-Seci.on {I)

a^{,->d Sub-Section 2(A)}

Section 10 of the Industrial Depute Act, 1947 1MS

refened this dispute for adjudication vide order No

L-12012/334/97-IR(B-I)

dated

10-08-98 o.i the

iollowing schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of St.u

Bank of India in terminating the services or

Shri Vinod Bhauraoji Paiatc is legal and

justified? L" not to what ielief the wo'Lni..,

is entitled ?"

Shri \ mod Bhjuiaoji Paiate has ^ubnrUed Stj'c

ment of Claim that he was working as Local Djk

Runner

in State

Bank of

India, Wardha

(Main

Branch) from 16-10-94 till 11-10-96 with break in

' " v ' c .

He voil.cj .(bod 3(>j d"\s continuously.

His appointment was made as a Local D,ik Runne;

by an oral order. For doing tip's job he was pud

Rs. 0.75 paise for distributing each envelope. He v.j?

getting payment through cheque by State Bank o!

India, Wardha. On 12-10-96 the manager of Stc t

Bank of India, Waidha (Main Bjanch) terminated his

seivice by an oral order. His termination was illegal.

He claimed reinstatement w'lh full b"ck wages.

The management of State Bank of India contested

trie case that tor distributing the envelopes oi the baiiA.

the woil.man was bemg paid 0.75 paise per envelope,

fie was noi the unployee ol the bank, lhere was no

leldtionsnsjj oi the master and the servant between

the management of tne bank and the claimant. lie

was not selected lor any regular post of the bank. As

he was no* the employee oi the bank, no formal notice

for discontinuing the woik, was given to him. He is

not entuied to any relief claimed by him.

The affidavit ot the workman V. B. Parate vvas filed

on 03-02-99. He was cross examined on 09-03-99.

j he workman admitted that he was getting 0.75 paise

for distributing each envelope, i he payment was made

to him on the basis oi numbei of envelopes distributed

by him. There was no fixed time for distributing this

J I*. Ke never Signed any Muster Roll of

the bank.

V. B. Parate also admitted in the cross examination

that there was no advertisement that the post of a

Dak Runner is to be filled in the bank. He requires

J0 to 12 thousand lupees per month foi the mainte-

nance of his family. He is earning this amount for the

expenditme of his family.

Fiom the side oi management die statement of Shri

Kiran S/o Dattu'raya Godbole, Branch Manager or

the bank was recorded. He stated that V. B. Pas ate

was doing the work of distributing the dak. V. B.

Parate was paid 0.75 paise for distributing each en-

velope. He was not working for full working houis of

the bank. V. B. Parate was at liberty to come any time

in the bank and report that the envelopes have been

distributed. He was not the regular employee of the

bank.

I have ccnsidcicd the oral and documentary evidence

produced by the parties. Both the parties have submit-

ted their Written Arguments.

From the evidence discussed above it is evdent that

V. B. Parate was doing work on contract basis. Ke

was not attending the bank lor any fixed hours of duU.

He was at libeity to come any time during the work-

ing hours of the bank and take the envelopes JOI

distribulion.

No -Vioomtment Leltei was issued to V. B. Paiate

b\ the management oi the bank. The claimant V. B.

P.Tjtilj ,vai a' i'bvrt)

to 'lo any othei

job for

the

min.cnarje of h's family. The statement of the wit-

ness V M. Paiatc clearly shows that he was earning

about 10 thousand mpees per month lot the mainte-

nance ol his family, lie had s^;x persons in his family.

There is no lecord to show that he was getting 10 to

12 thousand mpees per month from the bank. His

own statement thcrefoie, shows that no advertisement

was nnde for the post of Dak Runner by the bank

when he touL up the contiact of distributing the dak

and settle his rate for distributing each envelope.

Jn the above circumstances no iceord icgaiding the

number ot working days was maintained in the bank.

V. B. Palate was not marking any attendence in the

Attendence Register of the bank for his coming to the

b"nk to receive the dak or to report th.it how much

•ime he took in distributing the dak on any particular

day.

6886

TI-m GAZETTE Of? INDIA: NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 ( U ) ]

That there was no relationship of master and servant

between the management of iJie bank and V. B. Parate.

V. B. Parate was not a workman within the meaning

•of Sectinon 2(s) of Industrie Disputes Act, 1947, No

record for his continuous

service was maintained in

the bank as he was not treated as the employees of

the bank.

V. B. Parate was not appointed for the post of Peon

or any other Class-lV employee according to the ruies

of employment for the service in the bank.

As V. B. Parate was not the woikman or employee

ol the bank, no formal notice for discontinuing his

work: was required to he given. I he bank could any

time ask him to discontinue the work ol distributing

the dak.

Thus the management of the bank has not commit-

ted any illegality in removing V, B. Parate from the

work of distributing the dak of the bank.

ORDER

The action ol the management ol State Bank of

India

terminating the

service of

Shri Vinod

Bhauraoji Paiate is legal and justified. V. B. Parate

was not an employee of the bank and the management

of the bank did not commit any illegality in disconti-

nuing the work of distributing the dak of the bank

through claimant V. B. Paiatc.

V. B. Parate is not entitled to any relief claimed

by him.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Date : 17-10-2001

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3209.—In pursuance

of Section 17

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947), the Central Government hereby pub-

lishes the award of the Central Government

Industrial

Tribunai-cum-Labour

Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Anncxure in

the

Industrial Dispule between llv employers in

relation to the man;i,<iemeni oi! Rennras State

Bank Ltd. and thcif workmen which was re>

ceived

Ihe

Central

Government

29-10-2001.

[NO. L-120I2|277|2000-IR(B-I)|

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESIDING

OFFICER : RUDRESk

KUMAR

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 16012000

Ref. No. L-12012127712000 |IR(B-1J dated

10-10-2000

BETWEEN

Rajesh Kumar,

Lahartara, New Basti,

Kabir Math Near Dihba Madtiwadih,

Varanasi.

AND

The Divisional Manager,

The Benaras State Bank Ltd.,

Head Office, S-20J52,

A. K. Varuna Bridge, Canlt.,

Varanasi.

AWARD

By order No. L-12012 277 2000,IR( B-I)

dated 10-10-2000,

the Central Government

in the Ministry ol' Labour,

in exercise of

powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec-

tion (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

the I.D. Act, 1947 (J4of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the Rajesh Kumar

and the Divisional Manager, Benaras State

Bank Ltd. Varanasi for adjudication.

The

reference is produced as under :—

"Whether the action of the management

of the Benaras State Bank Ltd. in

termrriating

the

services

of Shri

Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 5-10-1999 is

justified ? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for ?"

2. The case of the workman Riiesh Kumar

H thai he is

a scheduled caste with educa-

tional qualification

8th

passed.

Tic

was

dS87

engaged by the management of

the Benaras

State Bank Ltd., Nai Saruk branch, Varanasi

city from

14-7-97 as a Water Boy and Sub-

Staff.

He continuously

worked in

the said

bank from 14-7-^7

"to 4-10-99.

His daily

wage was Rs. 30 per day. In addition to the

work of Water Boy he was given other works

of the bank and worked for whole day. The

duties performed by him were the same done

the Sub-staff.

His

total working

days

from 14-7-97 to 4-10-99 were 607 days and

in this way he worked 240 days in 12 months.

He has also alleged that on 4-10-1999,

the

newly appointed

branch

manager

the

Nai Sarak Branch Sri Ram Kamal Tcwari en-

quired about his caste and on being inform-

ed that he belong to

scheduled

caste com-

munity he orally directed him not to come on

duty from the "next day i.e. 5-10-1999.

requested

him at several occasions to give

him duty and keep him engaged but deaf cars

were given to his

cause.

The management

did not comply with the provisions of section

25F of the T.D. Act

1947 bv denying re-

trenchment compensation notice pay and other

pecuniary benefits

admissible to a workman

under law.

3. The claim of the workman is contested

by the bank management.

It is denied that

the workman was given any appointment

Water Boy or he worked for more than 240

days in 12 months as a daily wager.

pleaded that section 25F of the I.D. Act is

not

attracted in his

case. However, it is

admitted that

workman Raiesh Kumar was

given contract for filling water for consump-

tion of

the employee¹! and customers.

The

bank

ollice is situated at second floor

and

drinking water was

reouircd to be brought

from the ground floor as there was no arrange-

ment of pump etc.

at that

time.

Tt was

hardly 30-40 minutes work to fill up con-

tainers. The workman was never engaged for

the whole day, nor

he was given any other

assignment as claimed in the claim .statement.

In the period

mentioned in the claim state-

ment some

other

person

namely

Prabhu

Prasad was also

given coniract and he used

to discharged contractual function

of filling

containers.

Both the parties filed documen-

tary evidence an,d examined oral evidence on

affidavits.

The evidence given by the parties

would be discussed a bit later.

4. It is not denied that Raiesh Kumar work-

ed in the bank.

According to mnn"<rnn-ici]t

hi- \v-is

invm contract nnd

payments were

m;ulj to him as per stipulations of the agree-

ment. He was not engaged as a daily wager nor

he was given appointment to discharge duties

of Water Boy|Sub Stall". The workman,

the other hand- disputed this laet and alleged

that his engagement was as a daily wager and

not

as a contractor.

So, the main issue is

to judge the status

of the workman Rajesh

Kumar,

whether a daily

wager or

a con-

tractor. If he was arranging drinking water on

contract, the provisions of section 25 F will not

apply but in case the workman succeeded in

proving his

continuous

engagement as

daily wager for purposes of arranging drinking

water at the second floor and dbch lrging other

bank functions

his case may be under sec-

tion 25B read with section 25F of

the I.D.

Act 1947.

5. The workman in his oral statement has

detailed period of his

engagement.

He has

also filed a chart giving details of the period

of works for which

payments were received

and also

the number of days worked. Like-

wise, he has also filed a list showing details of

works, normally discharged by the nib-stall'

This list gives date, payments and also

the

nature of work assigned to him. In addition

to this list,

he has

filed a copy of journal

issued by the Benaras State Bank Ltd. which

shows his

standing alongwith

another em-

ployee inside the bank. A number of vouchers

have been filed suggesting payments to

the

workman. The management has not disputed

the

vouchers but has claimed that the pay-

ments were made to the contractor and

not

to 'Raiesh Kumar as a Water Boy. In view

of the admitted payments it seems necessary

to examine

oral statements of

the witness.

Workman

examined

himself

and he was

thoroughly cross-examined by the learned AlR

of the management.

He retreated the fact of

his having work

continuously from 14-7-97

to 4-10-99.

The workman

admitted

that

the word contractor was written by him on

Exbii-99 and Exbit-100.

He has also admit-

ted that Dnyments were m.-uJe in the mnie of

Prabhu Prnsnd from 5-^-99 to 31-7-99

the statement of claim

it is srj?cifico1]v plead-

ed (hut Prabhu Pnsnd is the real brother of the

Raiesh Kumar. This fact is not denierl by Hie

m.-inncremrnt. Three documents Hx. T-1, Hv.

T-2 ;*nd^px

T-3 bear siqmturo

of Prabhu

Prasad.

This witness staged trnt h<- nr-nnred

the documents but siined bv PrihVm Pn«;ad

for tbr- nnrroses

of rv>"m<Tit

Tf tlip rross-

exnminpfion is srrntini/od it VT-K (O sbow ihnt

rnvmorif- un 'o ^-^-0° to T?-ii^ h Kinmr i? not

under dispute.

Further more a glance over

6888

1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/^bRAHAYANA 3, 1923 LPAKI II—SEC. i{A)]

the payment \DuJkui 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 admits! by the

management. On the back ot u'u>c •'•' . ted

vouchers signatures cf" Raje^h KM I T ' 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

to pa\ment oi wages («> Rs. 30 per day. Ex-5 1

dt. 1 Vijl.

Ex-54

Ex-55, Ex-56", Ex-57,

Ex-58, E\-59 and others

payment vouchers

of the be nk mentions Rajesh Ku nar as Water

Boy.

Likewise,

other vouchers i.e. Ex-60-

Ex-61, Ex-62, Ex-78, Ex-80 mention R?|c,h

Kumar as Water Boy. Not a single voucher

mention the workman as a contractor. The

consistent case of the workman is that

he was engaged as a Water Boy I Sub Staff as

daily wager on payment of Rs. 30 p.r day.

The payments have been made <® Rs. 30 per

day as wages- giving designation o^ workman

"Water Boy" as mentioned earlier. The work

contractor is not mentioned in any of thr

documents. The map? <?errerst did not file °.iv

agreement indicating {he period of a^^ement

and the work

oo%ered by the agreement.

Arranging drinking

water was a continuous

nsed nnd the vouchers indicate

that Rr.jesh

Kumar ann-qged drinkins water for the em-

p'ov^es a-> well as ca^omer^ on ih^ second

^loor "vher- the banV office was situated. No

doubt, «om: of the vouchee bror s>.-iture of

Pr^bhu Prasad but as stated by the workman,

demands «ere

made in hi« signature but

Prabhu^pr i«^d was nsked to si^iTn for t-iVing

ofivrppnt-;, Th^:- ">r)O^?rs to be "> devic^fo

defeat th" rV""' of the 'vorkm^*-,. Mr. S-i Ihir

K'ⁱⁱnar, the then Manae r o^r +h^ h^^V e^"^^*""-

c\ himself to^c'ib^<5{ >nt'.^ri<e e'r^io^r v-=>rcion.

In flrst line of hi^ cross ex^m'm+ion he ad-

mitted that ^ajesh Ki'inT W°S eng^?^¹^?o^r

' '"ranging w "ter on the second *!OT of tlie

bank and the v/aier \/as to be rvriv ^d fro-n

ground floor. Tni« adm^sion

substar^'a'es

wcrkiT>rn's \ rr^ion 'hit he wos 'P^"" d f' r

a'T.iiigin?- water

No doub^f t'¹"^. w't.-'ess ha^

r^rt'n Hp'njiQ ,~ff '"o ¹'.'"g T^d^o1tO^{r i}'^f ! "^1-v i]'

contract to aiTPngt watt r but Sic n ^:d ^ i t 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 i^f no vich

do^r"'" "HK, Tf S-i Rfi'"«h Krirnr was "nno'n

ted tf- v conlractor dierc was no occasion

* ">

aejiiion "iVt.t r Bo_, jii the pay mem voucheis.

'I h ^j c^-,e sti U,J 'c>\ the aiaiu.j-nncni is not

i.u t worthy

/. It ins been ooserved earlier that some

OL the \oucher»- are ±n the name oi Prabha

Prasad. Ail other vouchers lor more than 2

\edis are in the n^me oi Rajesh Kumar who

hau recciv^a pa>.ncntb and signed on the back

ot the vouchers. Frori perusal of the chart

it appears Lorn July 1997 to June 1998 Rajesh

Kumai vo'ked Id 292 da\s and trom May

1998 lo April 19'>v ior 26-r day^. Ibis work-

ing p^iiod are fully pro\' d by the evidence and

also hv ilie oial testimony of the workman.

Thu , i'i the facts and circumstance-* oi the

case,

tiie workuian successfully

discharged

his onus to prove continuous service ior more

than 240 days in 12 months and his period oi

engagement in the sail ye-'irs brought his case

in the definition of 'continuous service' defined

upder section 25 B of the LD. Act,. In view

of the said fact the provisions of section 25 F

was explicable and the manage¹"¹¹ ent VVPS under

statutory

obligciions to pav retrenchment

comp:nsation and other pecuniary b^"^Afits to

the "/ciricti ^n. It is admired that the pay-

ments v ere not made as o^r orov'sion of

section 2^S«P of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the

disdw^e of^fhe workman^froTi 5-1C-99 was

\oid-ab-inirio.

8. The question for consideration whether

the relief of conf^;rsint^v can b⁽ⁱ nil owed in

fr\o'ir ot th^p \vorkm°ⁿ

^r> v'^vj of the fact

tha^f ^hc bank arranged nurnos to fe^fch water

for dnn^ipsi purposes from July 200'.

This

fo'.t also

ad*nitted b™ the workman in his

cross examinanon

that the bank

T-rpnge

separate pn^D to irraⁿ<?^ drinking wnter on

fhe rtci"/.i Hoor. Taking this admitted

fact

into co ^^idr^iHon. the cor^>*innity ii f'l^'our

2001.

9 Th^ ^ntena's OK^r"c^ri**ci do not "u?'^T'.^i<!<

e\\tenc" of a oo^f of Wat <- Roy «t t^e bark

In ab<-en^re o^f av\ r^s⁺. the wor^mnn "an not

be granted re¹f°f of rHnst? ^vTent

However,

h'^a is piitif^f¹ ''f^re1ief of continuity ^^ a W'^n<f'r

P ~)\ f o*^ⁱ'"^ir> ^I^P¹ t^ir setvic^ps '""^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^ ^"<^A "W rH i' "t foVo^' •

('pi +Nr> "^r</^;r^ of the wot 1''r>"~! Piip'Ji

Mur-i ^r WPS illeg-slly

tcrm<"j e.1

6891

'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^;<vicd ip sub-dau-c (a) above

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

dated

13th

July,

19%,

the

clarifi-

cation

for

payment

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 a^re 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

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-<ic pav ol the permanent in-

cumbent is equal to or less than that of

the person rvfh'eiatinc, the officiating al-

lowance shall be 7.5 per cent of the basic

pay of the peison officiating ;

(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

higher.

Such officiating

allowance

payable prorata for each clay of work in

the clerical cadre without any limitation

as to the number of days foi vluch

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'^nWc

639_

THE GAZEITE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ 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.

Difference of Basic pay

of the person officiating

and the person against

whom chance is given :

Rs. 550

Amount whichever is less

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*

"(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."

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3211.—In

pursuance ol Section I'? ol

the

Industrial Dispute

Act, I^L)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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE

THE

CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JAUALPUR

Case No. CGlT|LC|R|2Mi90

Presiding Officer. ; Shri K. M. Rai.

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.

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—

"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

JTHt GAZETTE OF 1ND[A :NOV, 24, 2001/ V3RAHAVANA 3, 1923

(PART I I - S E C . ? u ) j

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

than

240

days

preceding

year

horn

the

date

their

termination

due

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.

3. The workmen further alleged that though initi-

ally they were appointed for a specific period¹ but their

period of employment was extended from time

time.

They were regularly performing the duty of u

clerk in the bank.

'1 heir services were not automati-

cally terminated alter the expiry of period of employ-

ment,

Different persons junior to the workmen were

appointed against the clear vacancies and the services

of workmen were not regularised by the Bank. The

management did not follow the principle of First come

last go. The workmen continuously worked in the

Bank for a period of about 78 days to 115 days only

because the unfair Jaboin practice was adopted by

the Bank.

The termination of the services of the

workmen is therefore illegal and deserves to

quashed.

They are entitled

reinstatement with

other consequential benefits.

4. The case for ihe nana/>emeni. is that the woik-

men Mere appointed in adhoc vacancy. They

were

appointed not to do any regular kind of duty but to

discharge theii duty

per

terms

of contract.

They were appointed foi fixed period as per contract

and therefore their scvicc-, automatically came to an

end after the expiry of the contractual period.

Their

discontinuance from -eivicc docs not amount to re-

trenchment us claimed try them. They had not conti-

nuously worked for move than 240 days in a calendai

year proceeding the date of termination from service.

I he piovisions" of Sections 25-G and 25-F are not

applicable in the nresenl case. For the regular ap-

pointment as a clerk in the bank, the recruitment

rules have been framed and they must be observed

for this purpose. The Banking Recruitment Board

has been constituted tor conducting the competitive

examination for the leeruitment of clerk in the Bank.

The vacancies are notified and. the applications un-

invited for (lie -am*. In the present case, all these

formalities were nol observed in giving the employ-

ment to the workmen. In such a urcumstaiu-c, they

cannot claim the >c»ular appointment

as a clerk-

through means ol back door entry.

5. The mai-Miianc-nt further alleges that as per

bipartite settlement, the Bank is authorised to aopoint

temporary workmen foi a period not exceeding 90

days in the case of exigency. The Bank never exer-

cised unlair labour practice against the workmen.

The woikmui nevei applied r,. , ,,>.TUl.ir appoint-

ment as clerk in the Bank accoulini' to the provi-

sions of recruitment mlcs. The management was not

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 ?

7, Issue No. 1 : It is an admitted fact that the

workmen wcie appointed temporarily lor a paiticular

peiiod to perlorm the duty ol clerk-cum-cashier in

the Bank.

Jt is also an admitted lact that for the

appointment of

elerk-cum-cashier, (he

reciuitinciu

mlcs has been funned and they must be followed

for making such appointment in the instant ca-e. The

vacancies are notified and the applications arc invit-

ed loi the same. The candidates had to face com-

petitive examination and aliei they clear this test,

tdcy have to face interview also. The succes<ful can-

dicates aie given the legular appointment a^r. clerk

in the Bank. In the present case, no such formality

was observed in giving appointment to the workmen,

They

were given appointment by the Bank for a

fixed peiiod of time only and after Ihe exphy ol

this peiiod, their employment automatically came to

an end, They also did not work for 240 days in a

calendar year pieceding the date of their termination

from service. At the same time the Branch Manager

was not competent to appoint the clerk in the Ban •

as he was not authorised to do so. In this way, the

initial appointment of the workmen was not legal

and therefore on this basis, they cannot claim any

right to this po*t. Without complying with the pro-

visions of recruitment rules, no person can be ap-

pointed clerk in the Bank. The employment in the

Bank tin ough the method of back door entry cannot

be justified. The termination of workmen does not

amounts to retrenchment also as they were employed

for a fixed period of time as per contract aivl alter

the expiry of the period, their employment automa-

tically came to an end. Hence the provisions of Sec-

tions

25-F, 25-G and 25-H of l.D. Act are not

applicable in the instant case.

8. In view of the above said reasons, it is

held

that the workmen are not entitled to reinstatement

with back wages and other consequential benefits as

claimed by them. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.

9. Issue No. 2 : In the light of my finding given

on Issue No. 1, the workmen are not entitled to any

relief as claimed by them. The reference is accord-

ingly answered

in lavour of the management and

against the workmen.

10. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India as per rules,

K. M, RAT, Presiding Officer

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 99-lU(BI)]

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

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 V S

GiiKlhai, D Geetha

& Rajeni Ramadass, Advocates,

t)v

Mameemrnt • Su

N G R

Pnsad,

S. Vaidyanathan, Advocates

1 he Govt ol India, Minisliy oL Laboui in cui-

cise

poweis

contericd

chuse

(d)

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 u d

JO-7 1999

This leluence has been made cailiet to the Tamil

Nadu State Industnal InbunaJ, when, it w it, taken

on file as I D

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 aigumen^fs 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<fbd "> 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

the

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|S3

6896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A N A 3, 1023

[PART JI—Srr.

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

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 : —

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

vacancies oi in

expectation

of any vacancies.

So,

the pic-iequisite

loi compassionate

appointment is

possession of minimum

qualification and suitability

lor

the post.

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

appointment

compassionate grounds

provides that appointments

can be made against specific existing vacancies or in

expectation

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.

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 :—

Tiio Secretary of Pandyan Grama Bank Employees

Association- has raised this industrial dispute in res-

pect of Smt, Nalini Sekar, a widow of on- Mr, Sekar

who woiked

as an olficer

in the Respondeut|Bank.

Mr. Sekar died

in harness

on 13-7-92

After his

death;

the concerned workman Smt. Nalini

Sekar

applied for compassionate

appointment

:\? a clerk.

The Director

of Department

of Economic Affairs,

Banking Division, Ministiy of Finance, Government

of India had issued a circular

da'ed S-7-S2 to the

Chairman, of all Regional Rural banks in respct of

scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased

employees

on compassionate

grounds in Reconal

Rural Banks.-

The Xerox

copy of tint circular is

Ex. Wl. On the basis of that instructions

of the

Government, the Respondent/Management Had issu-

ed a circular dated 6-1-83. The xerox copy of that

Circular w Ex. W2. It is" seen from Exs. Wl and

W2 the minimum qualification for a widow of the

deceased employee for appointment would be a pass

in Vill standard, whereas other dependents of the

deceased a pass in SSC/SSLC/Matriculation or its

equivalent examination. Tn those Exs. Wl and W2

it is further -toted trr.t for subordinate "⁴off

the

minimum qualification will be as prescribed by the

board for the cadre. Ex. W3 is the xerox copv of

the appointment order given' to the conn rued woiV-

man Smt. N-ilini Sekar dated 9-10-92 wherein the

concerned workman was gffered the post of a mes-

senger on compassionate ground. Ex. V/4 is a repre-

sentation given by the concerned workman Smt N;ilin'

Mcar

dated 5-11-93.

In that

representation sp«

has mentioned that eavljer he has requeued to a^ve

appointment his brother as a clerk and now ;he h,\d

rer-onsidered her decision and request the Man-Ce-

ment to

give her appointment as a Clerk

in the

Bank, s'nc° the minimum qualification required for

a widow of the deceased employee to be apnoirtcd

for the clericat cadre is only a pass in Vill Standard.

Ex. W5 is the xerox, copy of the Chairman'"; firrnli'¹

dated 18-1-93 issued by the Respondent/Bank ad-

ministrative office. Alr>n# with that circular a modi-

fied , scherne. for

appointment

compa*?sinnt>1e

pround. has, been enclosed. As per that circular,' ihe

irn'nirhum eligibility requirement for appointment in

clerical cadre foi- the widow under compassionate

ground is a pass in SSLC or eciu'valent examnnliori

EJx. W6 is the xerox COPV of the letter dated 1-ft 9S

sent by the

Deputy. Manager,

National R^nk foi

,Aqricul^fure and Rural Development to the Ohniv-

man, Pandyan Grama Bant. In that letter the Chair-

man of the Respondent/Bank was informed that the

motter of staff appointment on compassionate pnnnri

has been referred to the Government of Tn^rTi:i for

their decision. Ex. W7 is the xerox copy of the letter

dated 22-3-94 to the Respondent/Bank Chairman.

3497 GI/2001—6

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<n directed to appear the

H u d

Office on or before 30-6-94 with all relevant re-

cords. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared at

Head Office on 30-6-94 and made a representation

on the same day requesting three month-. t^;m; limit

to join for the duty. Subsequently, she has sent a

communication

dated 24-8-94 to

the

Chairman,

Pandyan Grama Bank stating that she has recovered

from her illness and report at Head Office to acc:pt

the cider of appo'ntment without prejudice to her

appeal requesting the Board of Directors to seek cle-

rical appointment. The xeiox copy ot one such letter

is Fx W9

Ex. M2 is the xe^rox copy of the renrj-

scnuiLon given by the concerned workman Srn^f. Nn *n"

S ki> 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 con^Lidcr

her

request for appoiniment to her brother and inioimei

her to report for duty at administrative office

S.ittur on or'before 21-11-92 to accept the post oi

M^cnger 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;

6 In Ex. W2 c'rcular, the qualification for ap-

nnintrnent for the widow of the deceased entp¹oyee

is a pass in Vill Standard. That is admitted bv 'he

T?espondcif/Management.

Und>v thru^rc!v»ⁱc ''sdf,

it is stated that applicants will be interviewed by a

so'ection committee to be aono'nted by- the board

in order to assess their suitability for the pirfWi�

nost. Another condition for such anrjointmpnt m?n

tioned in the circular is that appo^;n*mcn^fs CTI b:

made apain^t specific existing vacancy or in expec-

tation of vacancies. When the xer^x cony of f^a'

circular is marked bv consent as Ex, W? nl' these

conditions ment^;oned above availaWc in^fhat Ciirn-

lar have not been disDuted bv the Petitioner.

from this, it is seen that the pre-renuisite for com-

passionate

appointment is possession

of minimum

nullification ;ind sirfabiiifv for the post

As it is

contended by the

Respondent/Mam fmncnt,

rncri

possession of minimum qualification will mf rniitl^

the deoendrnt to claim artnniritment in a "nncn^1rir

post. It is al<-o contended by the Respondent that the

representation of the Petitioner for ap^ointitip her in

the clerical post was placed before the BnaH and

th: ^on,rd 'rt its mcet'nff held on 12-*>-94 rnofi'-rn^d

frjr- dwsion alreadv taken in its meeting on 19-9^Q2

aDDO'nting her as mpssr-necr. It fc also the enn^en-

tion of the Respondent that in order to relieve the

6898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1921

[PART IT—SEC 3(il)]

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

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.

W2 6-1-83.—Xerox CODV of the circular No.

2|81.

Regarding Scheme for appointment

of Dependent¹; of deceased employees

Compassionate grounds.

W3 9-10-92—Xerox copv of the appointment

order of the Petitioner.

W4 5-11-92—Xerox

copy of the representa-

tion of the Petitioner to the Management.

W5 18-1-93.—Xerox copy of the Circular No.

45192-93. With

regard to staff Compas-

sionate appointments.

W6 3-6-93,—Xerox copy of the letter

from

NABARD to the Respondent|Management,

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,

-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.

1986

.—Extract from seniority list.

J998

.—Extract from seniority list

as on 1-9-98.

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2001

S.O. 3213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the In-

dustrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad as shown in the Anne-

xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of State Bank of India

and their workman, which was received by the Cen-

tral Government on 29-10-2001.

[No. L-12012/97/93-IR(B-I)I

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

<Js 9?

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 execu^ta'

a bond on 10-9-88; that he very well understood Uj.

6900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(iij]

responsibilities of a teller and was also paid teilci'.;

advance 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 il-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act could be exeicised in view ol the decisions

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 li-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

ca^re 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.

6. The workman was suspended from services of

the Bank vide Ex. 15 da<cd 5-12-83 with immediate

effect pending enquiry intci the misconducts alleged

to have been committed tyy the ^ r k m a n and was

chutgesheetcd as per •,£)£. ](i on 27-1-89 (or .Gross'

misconduct as well as for "Minar misbonduc^It was

alleged that 10 savings accounts l*older liad leiadered

cash (in all amounting to Rs. lfcVOO.) to the fyork-

man lor being credited to their accounts in The Naroda

Inausaiai Estate tsrancn during the period from 8th

October. 1988 to i7-ii-S8;

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 u i 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-

rity

extended

the^T" 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

6901

and Ex. 33 granted time respectively up to 6-2-91

ana 21-2-91 and aJiO :,ent a ieit;gi;am to the woikman.

li uppeais tnat, tnat was tne i^t>i 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

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<i. Th;

workman being working in the banking institution,

he was fully aware of the result of his deeds. Learned

Shri Farmar also submitted that the workman had

repaid the amount of Rs. 19,7pO forthwith, and hence

[his ca"se should he seen f>*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.

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. rhc 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. 9/93. 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).,

11. 'Regarding' tht 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 N A 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 <t Industrial Disputes

Act"

"That apart... ."

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 :

•Time and again fron} thVoase ei Firestone Tyre

add Rubber Co. on which strong reliance

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.

Y. F. fcHATT, Industrial Tribunal

6903

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)"

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,

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.

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

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

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

<o the workman denying him opportunity to appear

in the test, for further promotion group 'C or the

workman on being Earned Leave failed to appear in

the test held on 8-12-19PJ.

- * • * * * «

6904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 24, . 2Q01/AGRAHAYANA 3,1923 [PART II—SEC. (ii)]

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.

6. The management, on the other hand, maintain-

ed that the workman had full knowledge

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

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

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.

7. As the factual scenario emerges, there is

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

earned

leave

with

vifcw

appear

in court

case

n Gprakhpur and la|er, eg return from leave

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

< ,.nd information at some emergency.

There is

cv'denc- that⁽he management had any motive

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.

1et*er was sent to him on his local residential address

1-y inecial mc^csanger, and the endorsement over the

U-ticr rives inference that his family members assured

tr-. in^form ^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

"ccen^t;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'e^f.

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,'

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,

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.

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!'^>n00^l[R(B-Ii

Dated : 14-2-2001

BETWEEN

^pmbef Executive

PR.S.S.

M-IHII Pnstpm Railwnv

">snir;3. KAI22

Premwati Nnoar

6905

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

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, for

6906

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

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

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

fr L^

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 :

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

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 :

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.

10.

Issue No. 4 :

On the reasons stated above, it is held that the

management had illegally imposed the punishment

of dismissal from service on the workman w.e.f.

28.11.90.

therefore-

quashed

The

workman is enu'iled io reins,u(enieul as far as Ihe

bac k wages are concerned, on the piincipleof no

wcikrcpt.y. he i ret cniit'id t c H c l wa^s.This

issue is answered accordingly.

11. Issue No. 5:

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 402/2001?

(Tamil Nadu S<at" Industrial T.ibaial l.D. No. 64/96)

(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).

6908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 3, V)22

[PART II

-SEC. 3fii)]

BETWEEN

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 lulu,

Ministry of Labour was pleased to order traiu that

this ease 1'iuni that Tribunal to this Tribunal for

adjudication,

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;—-

"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?"

2. _The averments in the Claim Statement of the

[ Party/Claimant are brily 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

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

6909

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 Petukn, 1o £^c a

statement for the prel'minai} irves.'pt ci> cci <h.(Ud

by him. Since the concerned woikman received tl e

charge sheet in the meamime, the Pctit^:oner did not

reply to the letter of the Divisional Mai ag^r dated

17-6-87. Even before the completion of the p* cri-

minal y investigation, the chuge sheet was issued to

the

concerned workman with a pre-deleimined

mind.

In the charge sheet, ten LCIS of mkcorduct

and the concerned workman have b;en

alleged.

Thx

Petitioner

submitted

his explanation

dated

22-7-87 denying the charges. Not satisfied vnth his

explanation, Ihe Management oukitd for

enquiry.

There is no b;>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

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:

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

creation of aoy asset and the loans werearhiraiiedi

solely with a view to claim subsidy

The loans to the

33 parties were sanctioned and disbursed' by the

Branch Manager ofThottiam branch-with the active

connivance of the Cashier

making it evident that

Branch Manager and the Cashier had derived benefit

out of the amount for subsidy along with the parties

concerned

The modus openandi adopted by ther

branch in the sanction of most of the irregular JRDP

loans was that out of the loan amount sanctioned

after deducting the subsidy amount a fixedtdsprosit

would iibe created for the balance: amount s<r that

amount will be available for repawnentof the loan «od

the subsidy amount will be

appropriated? by the-

applicant and the employees of the b*nk who- had

enabled

the.

applicants to

draw the subsidy.

Th« loans, were sanctioned• without any asset being

created. That would • show a subsidy was fraudu-

lently drawn and such a drawal would not have btmk.

possible but for the connivance and support of the

Bmnch Manager arWi !he Cashier.

As Cashwfr the

concerned workman was involved- in tlw matter of

fradulent disbursement of 1RDP loans to 33 parties

as he had signed the cash debit vouchers evidencing

pay roll without the signature of the recipients.

respect of 25 transactions where fixed deposits were

created there was no real remittance of cash but the

Cashier has chosen to initial the vouchers as having

received the remittance.

He has correspondingly

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 also a beneficiary in those trans-

actions.

Contrary to the

established practice and

the laid down conditions, the payments were made by

cash through cash suspense account debit vouchers.

In none of the 16 vouchers the signature of the appli-

cants or the suppliers was obtained. In respect of

vouchers covered by serial numbers 13, 16, the nar-

ration is that the amount was paid to the borrower

which is also contrary to the TRDP Scheme.

The

vouchers under serial numbers 1 to 5, 7 and 9 show

that payments were made to suppliers. The irregu-

larities came to light during the course of inspection

on 19-5-87. Thereafter, the concerned workman

instigated a sub-staff Mr. Prabaharan to obtain the

signature of the concerned party in the cash d&brt

vouchers. The signature of the borrowers in respect

of vouchers in serial numbers 8, 10 and 11 were

obtained

after

the inspection.

In the vouchers

covered for the disbursement of 17 TRDP loans on

28-4-87, no signature from the recipients had been

taken.

The signatures of the borrowers in respect

of the loans under serial numbers 12. 13 and 16 Were

obtained at a later date. In oilrr vouchers signatures

of the suppliers had not been obtained On¹ 3-6-87"

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

him.

Therefore, the concerned workman would not be

given

any relief,

much

less

the

relief

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?"

Point¹.—

This dispute relate* to termination' of employment

of one Shri S. Kannan who was working as a Cterk-

cum-Cashier in Thottiam Branch of the Respondent/

Bank.- He was* dismissed from service by the Res-

pondeht/Mitfttagemettt' w.e-.f. 29->7-1991 on- certain

charge* of rrHSoonduct alleged to have beun proved

against hint in an enquiry held for that purpose.

The- charges levelled -against htm were with regard

to hrs compWcky in the matter- ofsa^ction- of'irregulaur

loam UFKIW the- IRDF* scheme.

It is-alleged inthe

CoutWer" Statement of the Respondent that it is

maintaining the¹ book of instructions,

which is a

maiiail ssltirtg- >.Jrt tho manner in which the various

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.

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, outby the

Divisional

Manager of the Rcspondenf/Bank

Madras during the course of bis inspection of Thottiwu

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, Ml.

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 aid 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

6912

THE GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : NOV. 24, 2001/.AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART I I - Si,c. 3(ij)]

held as proved

I lie xeiox copy of tlic Enquhy

Officer's finding is Ex. M146, He has al<o suggested

the proposed punishment to be imposed on the

concerned emp'ojee since he happens to tc 1rv

Disciplinary Authority also. The said findings of

the Enquiry Officer-cum-Di'ciplinaiy Authority was

furnished to the concerned employee and a hearing

was fixed on 19-4-91 for the delinquent employee

to make his representation with regard to his proposed

punishment. The xerox copy cf one such noiice

given to the delinquent employee is Ex. Ml47. Sub-

sequently on the representation made by the ccnccr-

ned workman, the personal hearing was postponed

to 10-5-9] and the same was intimated to the con-

cerned workman by the Enquiry

Ofncer-cum-Disci-

plinary Authority. The xerox copy of the same is

Ex. Ml48. Subsequently, the final order has been

passed dated 29-7-91 confiiming the punishment

proposed i.e. dismissal from the services of the bank

without notice. The xerox copy of that final order

is Ex, M149. Then the Management has filed an

approval application before the Tribunal and the

copy of that application

alongwith administrative

order 29-7-91 was sent to the concerned workman.

The xerox copy of the same is Ex.

Ml 50. The

Tribunal has passed an order dated 22-7-93 in that

approval application filed by the Respondent/Manage-

ment in view of the endorsement made by the counsel

for the concerned workman by allowing the petition

and granted approval as prayed for, subject to the

right of the concerned workman to raise an industrial

dispute. The xerox copy of that order is Ex. M153.

The Concerned workman has preferred an appeal

against the punishment awarded to him by the Disci-

plinary Authority.

The xerox copy of that appeal

to the Appellate Authority i.s Ex. Ml 51, The Appel-

late Authority passed an order

dated

28-U-9J.

Considering the entire aspect, including the repre-

sentation made by the delinquent employee in his

appeal, the Appellate Authority has passed an order

confirming the punishment awarded to the concerned

employee by the Disciplinary Authority and has

dismissed that appeal.

The xerox copy of the order

passed by the Appellate Authority is Ex. Ml52. As

it has been conducted as domestic enquiry against

this concerned employee, the Management had con-

ducted a domestic enquiry separately for those mis-

conducts

against

the

then

Manager

Mr.

Venugopalan of Thottiam Branch. The charge-sheet

issued to him, the explanation given by him, and the

Enquiry Officer's findings, final orders passed against

that Manager, the charge-sheet issued to the siib=e-

querit Manager Mr. Vceraraghavan, his reply to the

charge-sheet, report of the Enquiry Officer initiated

against the subsequent Manager,

Veeiaraghavan,

final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in

the enquiry against him, the appeal preferred by Mr.

Veeraraphavan and the m ' e r ia"ic^J l> Hi Ainl-

latc Authority have been mniUd htre as Ex. MI.4

to l^withtheccmentoftrefcvivcl'c-i

i h Kti1 cm.'

6. In the Claim Statement filu' b> tl c Ttlitxru

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

it is held in a case icported as

1999

LLJ 175

U. P

SI ATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPO-

RATFON

OTHERS

AND

MUSAIRAM

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<c;ition

repoit to the concerned

workman

who vns the charge sheeted

employee <n

the

domestic

enquiry,

when the Management

itself

is not relying upon that docunien" and not marked

as an exhibit on their side to pio\e the charges

levelled against the eonceiped

workman

canno'

vitiate the domestic enquiry

proceedings.

8 Fioir,

the perusal

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

document which is not rel'ed hy

the Enquiry

Officer to suppoit thu charges does not amount

to violation of principles of natuial justice.

prejudice was caused to the delinquent in cioss

oxamine the Management witness who has spoken

about his investigation in icspect of the

mi^v

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

GOVT

HOML

DCFARTMENT

AND

OTHERS

Vs.

SRI

VAIGUNDANATHAN,

"the Tribunal cannot

intufete

with the findings

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.

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

the

Respondent/Bank

has violated

the instructions mentioned

the

Book

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

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

3497 GI/2001—8

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

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

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.

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.

6914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ 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

Nil

Xciox copy of Book Instruc-

tions

Part

111 "Misc. Services

page 55-60 and 99-105.

19-06-87

Xerox copy

of order of suspen-

sion issued to Petitioner.

13-07-87

Xerox copy of t|v; charge sheet

issued to the Petitioner.

22-07-87

Xmix ccpy of Ihc reply of

Peti-

tioner to the Charge sheet.

05-08-87

Xerox copy of the klter of Res-

pondent/Bank

To the

Petitio-

ner icgarding intimation c(' en-

quiry.

11-09-87

Xercx a py of ire ccrnmuni-

cation about change of Fnquiry

Officer and notice in this regard.

26-11-87

Xoux copy of

the

commnica-

27-11-87

lion i.bout

change

Fnquiiy

Officer and notice in 1his repard.

13-01-88

Xeiox copy of the notice of first

sitting 'if enquiry.

23-01-88

29-02-88

01-03-88

24-03-88

26-05-88

Xuo\ 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

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 repxn 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/-

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.

6915

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.

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

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

Divisional Manager Issued to

Petitioner

M55

27-04-87

Xerox copy of the FD credit

Challan

in the

name

Mr. M. Veerasamy foi Rs. 2100/-

M56

27-04-87

Xerox

copy of the FD credit

Challan

in the

name

Sri

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, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[P^RT II -SEC. 3(it)]

M63

27-04-87

Xerox copy of the

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

Sri

P. Kannusamy Acliari for Rs.

2100/-.

M73

28-04-87

Xerox copy of the FD credit

Challan in Hie name of the Sri

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

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.

6917

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

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

respect

II PL

(M)

Maiinuithammal.

M105

27-04-87

Xeio\ copy of the cash ciedit

voucher for Rs. 2.40

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.

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.

Mill

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 (Car) 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.

6918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 24, AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART IT—SLC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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-

6919

MJ59

11-0K-K7

Xerox copy of llic a ply of Mr.

J^J.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

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

F'RESENT:

. ...

Shri B. G, Saxcna, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. • CGIT : 29|W

Bank of India

ANP

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

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

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<? namⁿ nf Vin.iv.-ik U

Toshi.

The statement of Vinav.ok TocM wx* tennroVri find

he Mas cross examined on 1-1-^000 A^hokii T?nu<ac1

also nnnenkeo* as¹ a witness- for the wr'lfnn

'Prniti

the side of management the statement of P. M. Pandit

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 forPdaj-, Special L(.a\e

from 1992 to 1997.

The witness also admitted

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. Nawir 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

Tidii Workers' Orm^^;—tin« CNO^W)

N-^nnr

from Febmnrv

10^0 'o 3f!lh ^orrtember 1Q97 v-s

iustifier!

Th^p w^HcnPn i« pn+Iiiorl t-i ^n ~ii] I r<i"«

faciii+v frnm 1-10-97 in t^irns of Clans- 1" ?,Q of B"P

Settlement dat^d 19-10-66

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�re, in

the industrial

dispute between

the employers

relation

to the Central Bank of india and their work-

men, which wa^c

received

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

o^f 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.

6921

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer.—Mr. D.S.N. Alornc

kar Representative.

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

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated 29th September. 2001

AWARD

The Government

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

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 to?"

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.

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 recme^c-ted

for his regu-

WKifion in service- he

was

terminated bv

th"> order of Regional

Mamser,

Goa dtd.

2^-11-07.

was not

given

notice

pay

ro ^f th^ »^-e⁴rerc'ⁱmf^vr)+ comners^tion Tt is con-

t^ irird br w"= advised bv the Branch Manager

to wort in different nam^ps 1o avoid continuous

service for more

than 59 divs ^n a stretch.

He w*- workig iffiinst the rowuiar vacancy.

Though he w s

working in different n^mes

th~ cfnff ^-o Tcnown to him

It i<? contended

ai rrr the circniir of the

b-inV since he com-

rfct^r¹ pi ->iv thp.n 90 davs

h^ was

entitled

to reunion option in service.

His tei*n-nri^ofion

a^f p 'r^'ire is i11e"i1 ind

+h^rpfore h^ Proved

•i •*->'p«:f-"tpp->r'>*it \v «e^rvi^e ™/itp_ full b^ck wages.

3. The management Central Bank of Tndia,

resisted the claim of Shn Cb/xiankir bv filing

Wnttei St^ement (Exhibit 8) contending that

ClTxlank"r in collision

with rh^ eimlovce of

fie brnlv

wo^r\iu? i>i f)c''^;ous name>. deceiv-

ed th" b ink and the-r^ore he does not deserve

3497 GI/7001—9

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

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

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

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.

4. My Learned Pred°cc^csor framed i'sues

at Exhibit-10 on !b° basis of th*³ rival plead-

ings.

Deepak Chodankor n1^d pffidavit (Ex-

liibit-11) bv w.°iv of Exam^:na^t:on--n Chief and

he w<% rro«s exi ii'>^d bv thⁿ manas^ment re-

presentative and

thereafter

c'os^d

his evi-

dence vide pursbis ('Exhibif-13).

On behalf

of the

Cen+f¹

n?vk

Bank

Officer, Shri

Alorn^kar exTnined himseK at

Exhibit-14.

H • w¹

r< >c cxTmin^d bv the coimsel for the

mipio" p'-* -ipd th^reifter closed evidence vide

.'r«5b'- (F^hibit 16).

5. Cho'f^nkir filed Written Submissions at

^Ex-I⁰)

rad

the

management,

bank

(Ex-17^

Heard the Tx^'-n^d Cnu"«cl ind the

^enr^>en⁺ptiyp f^r |-»o+ii t^o TirHe^c ind n^rus-

c ¹ thⁿ r^co-d a⁵ n whole.

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*ea^cr>p⁽: rirntioned below : —

Issues

Findings

1. Whether th"

workman

was in

continuous emnlovm^nt of the

management as

rontTnniated

unde^r s^"^+;on ?5 P of the Act 9 Yes.

2. Whether

the

action

the

rnim<^"-i^n* in terminating the

services of Deenak

Piinikant

Chodqn¹ nr is lega¹

^nd iusti-

fied ?

Yes.

3 If noi, to wh"⁴ relief the s^id As per

workmrn is cntiied to ?

order.

6922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 24, AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART II- - SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

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

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<Tht of the deci-

sions sunrn in Zakir Hussain V, Endnecr-in

Chief,

Irrigation Deptt.. regularisation can-

not be made as a rule of thumb, and it

all

depends on the facts, therefore, femirption

of Chodankar is absolutely just, proper

and

legal, and therefore in any event he does not

deserve any rcleif.

Issues arc

answered ac-

cordingly and hence the order :•—•

ORDER

The action of the

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of Tndh- Go.n in ter-

minating the services of Shri Divmk

6923

Rajnikant Chodankar, Ex-Sub-Staff

of Cuncolhn

Branch

of Central

Bank of Tndia w.e.f. 23-11-97

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 ?"

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 of

6924

THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : NOV. 24, 1001 AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART 11—SEC. 3U01

claim as wdl Kuniari Vijaya elated that she wasg;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

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 Giade-\ 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

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 6241-6320

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-

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 listing 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

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 PM/MP(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

5 It is admitted fact that the concerned workmen

when made this lefcrcnce weie posted at Moonidih

Piojeet and

headquaiteis undei the

managemenf

Jhey alleged th.it the management in uttei violatu n

ol the

promotion policy ol M/s

BCCI cneulated

vide No RCCL/PA/If/78/6241— 6220 dt 20-2-7^

piomotcd/iegulaiised the services of 9 workmen to

Hectneal Supeiviioi in Fechnical d ide-A vide offieL¹

oidei of the Pci-,onnel Manager, No MP(A-37)/635

dated

16-7-82 and again piomoted/iegulaused 22

viorkmeji vide office oulej dated 31-5-83 to the po--t

of blectneal Supeivisoi in Technical Grade-A

Ihe

management after filing W S admitted the existence

of the circulai in question which has been mentioned

above ielating to the promotional policy of E & M

non-executive eadie

ft has been disclosed

by the

manigement that channel of piomotion for Sunervi

soiy Stiff in E & M cadre would he accoiding to tin¹

find cneiilai Disclosing this lact the management in

Ihen W S admitted that the office oider relating to

the piomotion of 32 staff of F & M non-executive

cadie weie¹ issued by the Aieas concerned due

69 6

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOV. 24, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 3, 1923

[PART II—Snc. 3(ii)]

misunderstanding ;md misapprehension and lor wlvch

an irregularity was commit'fd. The management also

admitted thai the^tai_I office order weie at variance

with the promotion policy/circular dated

20-2-78

The management also in the W.S. admitted that there

was another

mistake made by the ollicials of Sijuu

and Katra-3 Area and the said mistakes weie to pro-

mote the employees concerned to the post ot Elec-

trical Supervisor in iechnical and Supcivisoiy Giude-

A. The management submitted that such post

was

abolished by the Central Wage Board lor coal indus-

try as per recommendations contained in its repoi t and

therefoie no one could have been promoted to such

posts specifically when they had no such promotion

system. The management also in their W.S. submitted

that the promo¹ ion order passed by Katras and Sijua

Aiea vide

office order dated 16-7-82 and

31-3-8J

Were not consistent with the promotion policy of the

management's ciicular vide No. RCCL/l^JA/78-fi241 ~~

6320 dated 20-2-78 and iince these circulars are the

lcsult of mistake, iueguianties. misapprehension

regard to the policy ot the management for necessary

rectification action has been taken. It is seen that the

management did not consider necessary to adduce any

evidence on their part. On the contrary one of

the

concerned

workmen

examined himself ;>s WW-1.

WW-1 in course of hearing clearly pointed out how

they weie superseded by the whinii.sical decision of

the management oL Kali as Area and

Sijua

Are;«.

From the cross-examination I do not find any mate-

rial relying on which there is scope to say that WW-1

deposed contrary to the decision taken by the manage-

ment of Katras and Si|ua Area. On the contrary the

management admitting Iheir faull submitted in their

W.S. categorically that the authority of Katras

and

Sijua Area committed mistake misconstruing the policy

of the management passed those two office orders dt.

16-7-82 and"31-5-83. It is seen from the office order

passed by the Katias Aiea thai those workmen were

regularised lo the

post of Mcctrical Supervisoi in

Technical Grade-A in the pay scale of Rs. 722—12HH

subjeei to (be approval of the D.G.M.S, to work as

Electrical

Supeivisor.

Though the services of those

workmen were lefuilaiised lo the posl of Electrical

Supervisor in Technical Supervisory Gradc-A by th.:

Katras Area and Sijua Area the management submil -

ted that there was no such post of Electrical Supervi-

sor either in "1 echnie.il and Supervisot Grade-A ot

in any their grade and there was no system of pro-

moting employees to such post or grade with such

designation. Thereioie. if the oUice order issued by

Katras and S'jua Aiea and if the submission of the

management as per W.S. is taken into consideration

it will be seen clearly that the authorities of Katias

and Sijua Ar\i actually had no idea in the mattei ">\

icgularising the soi vices of those woikmen in Electp-

cal Supervisory in Technical Giade-A. There is suffi-

cient reason to believe that the authorities of Katra¹'

and Sijua Areas were not at all aware of the policy

of the'management and as such there is reasor to

believe that they issued the order in question whim

sicallv The management categorically submitted •id-

mittinn the mistake that they are taking steps for if-

moving the said nvstake. In comse of hearing learned

Advocate for the conmned workman submitted thai

till date no such lecall older Ki.i.i.i.n tu thh icgul.i-

risation of services of those workmen

was

issued.

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

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 :—

"^rlhc impugned Promotions Orders dl. 16-7-b*.¹

and 31-5-83 in the form of reguiarisatimi

is not consistent with the promotion policy

of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited vide

No. BCCL/PA-11/78/6241—6320,

dated

20-2-78 and

lhe workmen concerned are

entitled to be treated on Technical Gradc-A

from the dale their juniors were regularised

promoted on

Technical

Gradc-A and th •

workmen

concerned are entitled to

get

difference of wages and othei benefits for

the said period."

69I7

The management is

diiected to implement

the

Award within tlnce months from the date of its pub-

lication in the Gazette of India.

B. BISWAS. Prohidint; Officer

New Delhi, the 5th November, 200J

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

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,

Distl. Hilaspur.

M/S. Kaylin 'liunspuit (P) Ltd.,

PO Gevra Project,

Distl. UiLispuL.

Management.

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 :—

"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 a c entitled to ?"

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

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.

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 servant

6928

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-

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.

5. The case for the management is that the Director

General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Govern-

ment of India is responsible to give adequate emp-

loyment opportuniti/i to Ex-Servicemen who retired

or were discharged from the Armed Forces. In Ihis

respect, the

Director General has been

sponsoring

various scheme for rehabilitation of Ex-Servicemen by

forming companies etc.

With a view to implement

this scheme, the Government of India is encouraging

public sector undertakings to give contract work to

such

contractors who are