This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGN. NO. D . L .- 33001/99

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 49] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a

separate compilation

PART II—Section 3 - S u b- Section (ii)

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

(other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 29th November. 2001

S.O. 3298.—In exercise of the, powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as

(7205)

3630 GI/2001—1

7206 T HE G A Z E T TE OF INDIA : D E C. 8, 2 0 0 1/ A G R A H A Y A NA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )]

Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the

prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the

state of Jharkhand as entrusted to them by the

Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,

in the trial Courts and appeals!revisions or

other matter arising out of these cases in re-

visional or appellate Courts established by

law :—

1. Sh. Sheo Narayan Gupta

2. Sh. Sushil Ranjan Das

New Delhi, the 20th November, 200] 3. Sh. Shjv Kumar

S.O 3300.—In exercise of the powers conferred 4. Sh. Shambhu Nath Khanna.

by sub-section (2) section 8 cf the Frovidtnt Finds [No. 225|24[2000 AVD-II] Act. 19 25 (19 of 19-5) the Central Government

hereby directs that the provisions of the said Act HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

(except section 6A) shall apply to the Provident Fund

established for the benefit of the employees of the

Rashtriya Ayurveda Vidyapeetb.

[No. 4(1)-EV/95(I1)]

MOHJNDER SINGH, Director MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expend (lure)

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001

S.O. 3299.—Tn exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Provident Funds

Act, 1925 (19 of 1925) the Central Government

hereby adds to the Schedule to the said Act the nanie

,of the following public Institution, namely :—

"Rashtriya Ayurvcda Vidypecth"

[No. 4(1)-EV/9 5(1)]

MOHINDER SINGH Director7207 MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS.

FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2001

S.O. 3301.—In pursuance of sub-rule

(4) of rule 10 of the Official Language fuse

for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976

the Central Government hereby notifies the

following office of Food Corporation of Tndia

under the administrative control of the Ministry

of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribu-

tion (Deptt. Of Food & Public Distribution),

where of more than 80 per cent of staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :- -

Food Corporation Of Tndia,

Regional Office,

Raipur (Chhatishgarh).

FNo. E-U011 H'2001-Hintiil

RAJNI RA7DAN, Jt. Secy.

7208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

MIN1SXRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2001 S.O. 3302.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certi- fication) Rules, 1983 and in supersession of the earlier Notifications relating to appoint- ment of members of the Central Board of Film Certification, the Central Government is pleased to reconstitute the Central Board of Film Certification and to appoint the follow- ing persons as members of the said Board with immediate effect until further orders :—

1. Smt. S. R. Patel

2. Smt. Tina Ambani

3. Shri J. K. Jagiasi

Shri Arvind Trivedi (Lankesh) 4.

5. Smt. Chitra Desai

6. Shri S. R. Ashok Kumar

Shri V. Thiruvengadam

8. Shri L. Suresh

9. Shri Chitra Lakshmanaji

10. Shri Sanat Dutta

11. Shri Ravindra Kumar

12. Shri Srinath

13. Shri Baraguru Ramachanddrappa 14. Km. Shobha Karandlaje

15. Shri P. Shiv Krishna

16. Mrs. T. Vijaya Lakshmi

17,

. Shri Syed Fazil Hussain Parvez 18 . Shri Tripuranenj Maharadhi 19 . Shri Hemen pass

1. Dr. Ramesh Prasad Panigrahi Pravati Parida

2h Smt

22. Shri Mavelikkara Ramachandran 23. Shri A. K. Hameed

24. Shri Rajendra Mohan

25. Km. Poornima Sethi.

[File No. 809j3|2001-F(C)]

A. C. DUGGAL, Jt. Secy.

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2001 S.O. 3303.—In pursuance of sub-section 1 of section 36 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), the Central Government is plcassed to nomi- nate Shri P S. Agarwal, Chief Engineer, Central Electricity. Authority (CEA) as Electrical Insjfcctor w.e.f.07-Q 9-2001 viceShri A, Varghese, Chief Engineer who has since been transferred to North Easicrn Regional Electricity Board (NEREB), Shillong.

[F. No. 42/4/2001- R&RJ

AJAY SHANKAR, Jt. Secy.

7209

16.1001/01—27210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001

S.O. 3304.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. 686(E) dated the 17th July, 2001, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of gas through Kakinada Junction Point to BSES gas Pipeline Project in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said Gazette

notifications were made available to the public from 18th August 2001 to 11th September, 2001;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report, and decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on this date of the publication of this declaration in the Gas Authority of India Limited, free from all encumbrances.

7211 SCHEDULE 1 5 3 2 4

District Mandal Village Survey No. Area in Hectare

2 3 4

East

Kakinada Sarpavamm 230

0.1383

Part

Godavari Rural 245

0.0889

Part

0.1580

243 Part

242/1&2

0.1185

Part

0,1778

259 Part

278

0.0790

Part

279

0.0691

Part

283

0.1580

Part

284

0.0493

Part

0.1877

290 Part

291

0.2469

Part

293

0.1482

Part

East

Total:

1.6197 Godavari East

Kakinada Sarpavaram 93/2 Part 0.1580

93/1

Godavari

0.1086

Part

96/10

0.2227

Part

87/1

0.0593

Part

88/1

0.0727

Part

0,3161

Part

0.0198

Part

81/7 A

0.0376

Part

81/7B

0.0400

Part

83/6

0.0711

Part

83/7

0.0444

Part

83/4

0.0780

Part

83/2 Part 00839

83/1

0.0593

Part

0.0198

Part

0.3635

80/4 Part

77/1

0.1807

Part

0.2469

78 Part

0.5235

Part

180

0.1008

Part

0.0988

Part

184/15

0.1126

Part

184/14

0.2130

Part

184/12

0.0348

184/13 Part

184/11

0.0173

Part

0.2190

Part

184/5

0.0360

184/4 Part

0.0679

184/3 Part

184/1

0.1126

Part

3.0307

Total:

0.2170 Jaggamma — 244

Samalkot

Part

0.4120

246

Garipeta

Part

0.0850

236 Part

227

0.3360

Part

0.3160

Part

228/5

0.2070

206/1 Part

0.0890

206/2 Part

0.2370

205 Part

0.0840

Part

204

201/1

0.1380

Part

0.3560

Part

193/2

194 Part 0.3310

0.5430

195 Part

0.0150

166/1 Part

0.0300

Part

166/3

166/8

0.0260

Part

166/9

0.0220

Part

0.3950

165/4 Part

1.7548

Total :

East Sam;

Rayapuram 61

0.0731

dkot V.K

Part

Godavari

60/2

0.0232

Part

60/1

0.2139

Part

0.2336

62 Part

75/1

0.4963

Part

77/4

0.0267

Part

0.0590

Pan

165/3

0.1580

Part

165/2

0 1580

165/1 Part

0.1180

163/1 Part

0.0410

Part

163/2

4.3730

Total:

7212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)J , 1 3 4 5 2

Samalkot

East Godavi ari

Bhimavaram 353 352 259

Part 0.2864 Part 0.0296 Part 1.5407

266/3 Part 0.2765

266/1&2 Part 0.2963

269 Part 00642

533 Part 0.6214

280 Part 1.1852

283 Part 0.0790

4.3793

Total:

Samalkot

East Godav; ari

Part 0.0458 Part 0.0529 Part 0.1383

Vetlapalem 407/3 407/6 406

Part 0.3358

60/2

60/1 Part 0.2765

61 Part 0.0989

58/3, 4&2 Part 0.8988

63 Part 0.2370

69 Part 0,1132

Part 0.2765

70/2

85/1 Part 0.1185

Part 0.1185

85/2

Part 0.0691

85/3

84 Part 0.1877

74 Part 0.1432

83 Part 0.1420

80 Part 0.0217

408/4 Part 0.0722

3.3466

Total:

[F. No. L-14014/14/01-G.P.]

SWAMI SINGH, Director7213 7214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8. 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(if)l Natural Gas No. 753 dated the 4th April, 2001, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of Natural gas through Kuthalam 1 to Maruthur TNEB gas Pipeline Project in the State of Tamil Nadu by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 04th day of June 2001;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on this date of the publication of this declaration in the Gas Authority of India Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District Taluk

Survey No.

Village No. &Name

Area to be acquired for in hect.

71, Senni- yanallur

Nagapa- ttinam

Mayiladu- thurai

50/1 50/7 50/8 50/10 71/14 72/1 72/2 New Delhi, the 28th November, 2001

0.16.5 0.04,5 0.04.5 0.03.5 0,03.0 0.05.0 0.00.5 G.P. 0.07,0

78/1 S.O. 3305.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and7215 1 2 '3 4 5 \ 5 1 2 3 A 91 0.05.OG.P 78/2B

0.05.5

135 0.20.00

78/4

0.04.5

0.04.0

170/1

0.14.0

138/3A

172/2

0.06.0

0.00.5

136/3B

172/4

0.03.0

0.09.0

138

174/1

0.09.5

141

183/1

0.10.5

0.01.5G.P. 0.23.0

142/1

0.17.0

144/1

183/2 188/1

0.00.5 0.07.5

85/2

0.08.5

188/2 188/6

0.01.5 0.04.5

TOTAL

1.26.5

187/1

0.01.5

Nagapa- Mayiladu- 51, Kuthalam 490

0.09.0

186/3 0. 01.5G.P.

ttinam

493

0.17.0

thurai

71/5

492 0.02.OG.P

71/15

0.00.5 0,01.0

500

0.01.0

1.16.0 TOTAL

648/1

0.05.0 Nagapa- May i lad u- 52, Kshethra

I48/2A

0,03.0

palapuram

thurai

ttinam

0.02.0O.P.

114/2

547/1B

0.00.5

I13/1B

647/2

0.06.0

0.05.5

I13/1C

77/1

0.11.0

0.00.5G.P.

117

548 1

D.05.0G.P.

0.03.0O.P.

128

0.18.5G.P.

127

0.59,5

Ti OTAL

0.11.0

125

4H7/7

0.U6.0

0.05.0

126

Nagapa- Mayiladu- 5 1/2, Umam-

0.01.5

129/3

487/9

0.06.0

ttinam thurai Balpuram

0.01.OG.P.

190/4

0.09.0

178/1A i

0.02.5G.P.

190/5

0.01,5

178/1B

0.01.OG.P.

190/8

0.05,5

478/2

0.03.5

191

0.18.0

480/3

0.07,5

194/1A ]

0.07.0

549/1A

0.02.0G.P.

193

0.05.0

0.00.5

192/2

549/1B (

0.02.5

192/4

0,03.0

652/2

0.01.5G.P,

195

0,06.0

652/3

0.00.5

115/1

0,11.0

652/4

0.06.0

115/2

i.Ol.OG.P.

662/ • 0

0.06.0

115/3

0.05.5

659/3

0.04.0

115/4B

3.OO.5G.P

654/ 1

0.03.0G.P.

116

0.26.5

660/1

T OTAL

0.88.0

0.10.0

660/2

Nagapa- Mayiladu-81, Pcrumalkoil 90 0.01.OG.P.

0.02.5

669/1

ttinam Ihurai

89/1 0.01.5G.P.

0.15.0

669/2

0.15.0

89/2

0.02.0

669/3

0.03.5

82/2

1.41.0

0.17.0

TOTAL

807216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 70, Melaiyur Nagapa- Mayiladu- 0.05.0

109/30 ttinam thurai

22/2A

0.04.5

109/31 0,02.0 22/2C -

0.14.0

108/2 0.00.5G.P. 23/1

0.06.0

108/17 0,02.5 23/8A

0.04.0

108/49 0.01.5

0.01.OG.P.

0.01.0

107/2 41

0.01.5G.P.

0.00,5

107/3 43

0.07.0

107/9 0.00.5 44

0.07.0

0.03,0

107/12 45/1

0.12.0

107/11 0.00.5 45/3

0.00.5

107/19 46/1

0.14,5

0.00.5

107/17 61/4 A

0.02.0

107/22 0.01.0 61/6

0.02.0

0.00.5

107/18 61/1

0.02.5

107/27 0.03.0 89/4

0,08.5

107/28 0,00.5 89/5

0.01.0

107/31 0,05.5 89/8A

0.06.5

0.01.0

107/42 89/8D

0.02.0

107/41 0.02.0 89/8F

0.05.0

106/1 0.10 0 89/8G

0.03.0

0.07.0

105/1A 90

002.5G.P.

105/2 0.01.0G.P. 111/4

0.07.0

0.02.0

119/2 A 111/5

004.0

119/2B 0.01.5 111/8

0.07.0

2.03.5 TOTAL

U0/1A

0.02.5

Maytladu- 80, Manithur

Nagapa-

110/1B

0.01.0G.P.

0.12.0

thurai

ttinam

16 109/1A

0.00.5G.P.

20 0.01.OG.P. 109/4

0.05.0

0.13.0 TOTAL

109/13

0.01.0G.P,

109/17A

0.01.5

[File No. L-14014/6/01-G.P1 SWAMI SINGH, Director 109/20

0.06.0

109/21

0.03.5

109/22

0.02.0

109/25

0.00.5

109/27

0.02.07217 3630 GI/2001—37218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 |PARI 11—tar, -i(il)J

New Delhi, the 28th November, 2001

s. o. 3306—whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of regasified Liquefied Natural Gas through Dahej-Vemar-Vijaipur pipeline project in Madhya Pradesh State , a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

7219

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962),the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein; Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority.Gas Authority of India Limited,Vijaipur,Guna, Madhya Pradesh-473112.

Distt : GUNA TEHSIL : CHACHDDA

VILLAGE	SURVEY t NO.	AREA TO BE ACQUIRED FOR ROU	VILLAGE	SURVEY NO.	AKtAlU Eft ACQUIRED FOR ROU
Ramda	62 83/1 101	0.03 0.06 0.01	Ramdl	72 73 110	0.02 0.03 0.03
	Total	0.10		Total	0.08
Berkheda Maphl	13/1 13/2 14/1 14/2 16 18	0.10 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03	DISTT. KUKI* TCHSIL '. t W H t H M ?
			Sakakala	218/t/L 263	0.12 0.09
				Total	0.21
			Kanpur*	72 184	0.22 0.02
	Total	0.37		Total	0.24
Notya Khedl	38/7 38/8	0.04 0.01	Upri	l"/v 3/4 3/12 0 1 1 12/1 18/4 124 294	6-13 0.01 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.04 o.ov 0.16 0.01
	Total	0.05
Polas	73 75	0.10 0.01
	Total	0.11
Khajda Khurd	11	0.02
				Total	0.84
	Total	0.02

[No.L-l4()l4/8A)l—GP| SWAMI SINGH, Director7220 THE GAZETTE OF,INDIA: DECEMBER8,2 7221

New Delhi, the 28tfi November, 2001

s. o. 3.107.—whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of regasified Liquefied Natural Gas through Dahej-Vemar-Vijaipur pipeline project in Madhya Pradesh State , a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority.Gas Authority of India Limited,Vijaipur,Guna,Madhya Pradesh-473112.

Distt. : RAJOARH TEHSIL : RAJGARH

VILLAGE Dalclpura	SURVEY NO. 2	AREA TO BE ACQUIRED FOR ROU 0.18	VILLAGE Ktehan Puriya	SURVEY NO. 173 175 188	AREA TO BE ACQUIRED FOR ROU 0.01 0.01 0.03

	Total	0.18
Mohkampura	11/2	0.01		Total	0.05
			Kundlbe	823	0.01
	Total	0.01
				Total	0.01

SWAMI SINGH, Director

7222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7223 7224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBERS. 2(X)1/AGRAHAY&NA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7225

3630CH/2001-47226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBERS, 2(X)1/AGRAHAYANA 17.1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7727 7228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC.3Qi)] 7229 7230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2W1/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—She, 3(ii)] 7231

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001

s. o. 3308.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

Any person; interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification under sub-section (1) of section (3) of the said Act are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Punjab Refinery Project, Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited),L.P.G. Bottling Plant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342005.

7 2 ?2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Shri Dungargarh District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Part if Any ROU -Area Sr. No.

375

1 SANWATSAR

376

565

377

564

378

485

678

485

679

482

483

484

JOHAD Goachar

486

665

488

487

489 Goachar JOHAD

559

558

556

693 494

536

495 670 499

500

501

503

786

785 503

504

512

511

510

509

Biga Biswa

04 1

07 0

13 0

04 1

16 0

05 0

06 0

12 0

01 0

15 0

09 0

12 0

14 0

02 1

10 0

18 3

04 0

03 1

13 1

09 1

11 0

01 2

02 1

05 0

12 1

06 2

04 0

01 1

16 0

04 2 KILAYANSAR

637 2

636 2 0

11 1

13 0

027233

Ttthsil: Shri Dungargarh District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

Name of Village Khasra No.

ROU -Area Biga

Sr. No.

Biswa

KILAYANSAR

5 7 9 10

18 03 2

05 1

19 KOTASAR

302

303

304 328

327

326

319

320 325

324 322 355 174/1

444

443

175 175

170

178

159

179 158 157

142

154

153 151

150

148

01 0 2

08 06 0 2

13 0

10 0

00 08 2 2 0

10 1

17 2

18 0

17 0

02 2

03 0

13 1 r 1

19 1

10 1

00 2

19 1

02 DUSARNA

149 252 72

1 1

08 01 PIPASARIYA

72 •

251 71

70 205

206 69

3630 GI/2M1—5

12 2 0 1

15 0

12 07234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBERS,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Tohsil: Shri Dunaaraarh District: Bikanor State : Rajasthan Name of Village Khasra No.

Part if Any Sr. No.

4 OUSARNA

219 76

PIPASARIYA

77 79

192

225

243 52 53 42

173 34/1 7

6 DUSARNA BADA 243

242

241

7 7

6 5

10 4

12 225 14

226 108

6 BHOJAS

142 141 161

158

157 168 169

170 171

265

264

174 174

231

420

7 BENISAR

419

592

593 594

419 419

ROU - Area Biga I Biswa

05 08 03

14 2 3 0 2 1 0 4

08 3 1 0

18 0

02 1 0

0 0

00 19 02 12 2 2

02 01 2 0

03 02 4

16 13 2

09 2

13 1

07 0

14 1 1 1 2 1 2

03 0

14 0 0

097235

Tohsil: Shri Dungargarh District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan

Name of Village Khasra No.

Part if Any

ROU -Area Sr. No.

Blga

Biswa

7 BENISAR 171 557 558

172 172

173 400

401

399

398 395

0 0 0 2 2

13 12 03 02 14 01 15 0 0 2

12 1

06 1

Meter gauge Railway line G.L

385 386 387 389 184

183

185

186

368

188 367 560 189

190

231

230

234

229

477 237

238

239

480 483 481 239 239; Asphalted Road G.L.

482

240

317

316

12 0 0 2 0 0

01 1

02 1 1

15 0 0 1

04 2

09 0

08 1

04 0 1

10 1

06 00 05 2 0

09 2

GL Paytan

315

314

293

16 2 0

09 0072% THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2IX11/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 IP ART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Tohsll: Shri Dungargarti District: Bikanor State : Rajasthan

Part if Any Name of Village Khasra No.

Sr. No.

3 1

7 BENISAR

294 295

304

296

285

286

284

276

8 LAKHASAR

9 SHRI

ROU - Area Biga | Biswa 4

01 05 2 3

01 1

19 0

04 0

00 2

09 1

07 1

19 1 0

11 1

03 1 0 2

04 01 13 0

05 1 1 0 0

08 3 3 0 1

04 02 10 1

DUNGAROARH

11 18 15

Cart Track G.L

273 274 275 565 566 24 5 508 509 6 12 9 10 8 1 438 439 154 153 153 14 13 5 3 6 8 56 55 54

2 0 1 0

01 15 01 03 06 1

11 077237

Tehsil: Shri Dungargarh District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan

Khasra No.

Part If Any

-Area

Name of Village

Sr.

ROU

Biswa

Blga

No.

11 2

SHRI

01 0

DUNGARGARH

527 62

528 62

18 2

14 1

18 2

JAITASAR

1014

1016 3

03 0

05 3

- 09 1

02 1

00 1

07 1

11 GUSAISAR

683

685

686

687

688

689

1088 694

1089 694

695

748

753

779

780

781

778

776

774

775

07 2

14 0

18 1

05 1

12 1

06 1

05 3

07 2

02 1

09 2

03 4

11 3

05 0

14 2

12 DHOUYA

215

216

00 2

02 1

15 17218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,192.3 [PART II—Snc-. 3(ii)]

Tehsil: Shri Dungargarh District: Bikaner State : Rajasthan

N a me of Village

Khasra No.

Part If Any

-Area

R OU

Sr. No.

Blga

Biswa

1 UORASAR

2 1

128 128 128

0 1 1

147 147

2 875 877 878 136 135 134 892 893 145 144

150 150 150

2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 1

179 179

895 896 898 143 156 155 1073 1074 190 189 188 187 181 182 183 95 90 93

92 92

91 825 826 81 55 815 53 52 50

2 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 2 3 2 1 0 1 3

12 08 07 12 05 06 05 00 17 09 11 15 05 13 08 14 02 11 04 16 16 01 01 07 13 01 01 19 03 03 12 02 16 05 14 04 117239

T"hsil: Shri Dungargarh District: Bikarwr State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

Name of Village

Khasra No.

ROU

Biga

-ATM

| Biswa

Sr. No.

1 UDRASAR

44 46

405 405

14 LADHRIYA

207 208

215 215 215 215

216

16 JALABSAR

27 27

20 20

2 48 799 800 46 404 940 941 406 407 408 410 355 446 212 211 373 377 366 375 222 221 444 217 423 424 29 26 25 24 18 464 465 19 14 13 11 12

1 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

18 09 00 17 14 00 05 10 08 10 08 06 15 14 03 11 00 12 01 04 18 15 17 13 02 13 16 09 00 01 05 05 10 01 12 17 157240 THE GAZbTl'K OF INDIA:DECEMBERS, 2001/AC3tAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(0)] Tehsll: Shri Dum gargarh

Stats: Rajasthan

District: Blkanar

Name of Village

Part if Any

KhasraNo.

ROU-Ar"a Biga | Biswa Sr. No.

1 JALABSAR

0 02 2 13 0 03 1 12 3 06 1 01 0 17

2 10 99 101 98 104 105 372

1 106

[No. R-31O15/31/2OO1OR-H]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

7241

3630GI/2001—67242 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA:DECEMBER8.2Q01/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3Cii)l 724.17244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBERS. 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART 11—Si:c. 3(ii)| 7245

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001

s. o. 3309.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government thai for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification under sub-section (1) of section (3) of the said Act are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Punjab Refinery Project, Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited), L.P.G. Bottling Plant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342005.

7246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC.3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

TehslI : Naaaur District: Naaaur State : Rajasthan Sr. Name of Village Khasra No. Part If Any ROU-Araa No

Blga [ Biswa 12 3 4

1 DEHRWA

06 11

2 2 2

Cart Track G.L

80 8

0 7 4

12 01 03 12 02 01 01

23 24 1

Gauchar G L

2 3

Cart Track G.L.

2 KALRI

26 316 315

01 02 16 03

318 320

01 03

338 455

0 2

Cart Track G.L.

377

14 10 05 10

456 381 375 374

03 01 08 04 02 17

382 371 370 369 349 347

0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 3

Agor G.L. Agor G.L. Cart Track G.L. Agor G.L. Cart Track G.L.

225

266 239 237 225 447 224 223

1 0 4

03 14 03 06 09 08 05

4 3 2

228 181 180 179

097247

Tehsil: Naaaur District: Naaaur Stats : Ratasthan

ROU-Araa

Part If Any

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Biga | Btswa Sr. No.

2 682

1 Naya Gaon

681

679

544 Cart Track G.L Cart Track G L

191

543

4 0 06 3 18 2 07 0 03 0 01 2 06 2 17

542 539

0 01 2 01

Payatan G M

0 01 2 13 2 06 4 10 1 14 1 19

2 10 0 08

20 25

261

4 JAKHANIYA

249 250 252 247 Cart Track G.L.

Cart Track G.L.

246 236 253 191 Cart Track G.L.

220

217

219

218

258

193

190

189

GaucharG.L. Agor G.L. Cart Track G.L. GaucharG.L. Bera G.L. Cart Track G.L

2 15 2 10 1 04 7 00 0 01 5 03 0 06 2 00 0 01 0 01 0 06 3 02 0 04 3 16 0 06 0 08 0 01 4 11 0 03 8 04 0 01 0 01 2 15 1 08724K THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l District: Nagaur Stai

Tehsll: Nagaur Name of Village Khasra No.

to : Rajasthan ROUWrea

Part If Any

Biswa

Biga

Sr. No.

4 JAKHANIYA

80 83

84 96 95

335

94 94

09 07

2 ,3 1

5 SHRI BALAJI

Bhakar G.L.

774 776 802 803

804 796

6 3 0 3

794 809

08 05

789

1 2 3 4

810 787 786 785 783

04 11

0 3 2 1

02 19 05

Cart Track G.L.

068 666 667 650 030 B3O mm (15 Biga) mln (28.5 Biga) min (42 Biga)

0 2 1 1 1 0

01 18 02 00 03 17

130 330 628 627

Cart Track G.L.

0 0

15 02

Cart Track G.L.

625 617 619 620 608 594 595 596 585

0 2 0 0 0 4 2 0

18 13 13 02 14 10 09 047249

Tehsll: Nagaur District: Nagaur State : Rajasthan

ROU-Area

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Part If Any

Biswa

Biga

Sr. No.

579

11 6 SHRI BALAJI

Cart Track G.L.

580 557 539 540 537 536 525

526

GaucharG.L.

494

496

0 3 3 0

497

508 507 506

16 14

17 6

501 502 503 2

Railway Line G.L.

0 0 0 0

Asphalted Road G.L.

5 6 7 14 27

0 2

7 BUKARMASOT

3 1

06 04 12 17

0 4 2 3

?8 424 431 430 429 435 440 437 438

02 13 06 04 01

Cart Track G.L.

366 365

02 02 8

CHILA

3 0

03 01 17

2 4

364 14 15 13 12 11

11 01 12 3630GI/2001—7725(1 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBERS, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)]

District: Nagaur

Tehsll: Nagaur

Name of Village

State : Rajasthan ROU-Area

Khasra No.

Part If Any

Sr. No.

| Biswa

Biga

4 8

CHILA

2 27

26 492 7 29

504 29 515 5

9 PINPASAR

[No. R-31015/32/2001 OR-II]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy,7251 7252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAVANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7253 7254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7255 1 7K T HF T T A Z R I TF OF T N D TA • D F C F M B ER K 2 ( X ) 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 1 7. 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )l 7257 3630GI/2M1—87258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 7259 7260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)| 7261

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2001

s. o. 33to.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in

the public interest that for the transport of petroleum products from me Pancwadi

(Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Mangrya

(Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid, by Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of

laying the said pipeline, itis necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under

which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the

Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of

section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right pf User in

Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), me Central Government hereby declares** intention to

acquire the right of user therein ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within

twemyone days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India connttntng this

no^cataonjme made available to the general puttie, object in writing to the laying

of the pipeline under the land to Shri V.P. Pathak, Competent Authority, Mumbai

Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Limited. 26 Park

Road, mdore-452003 (Madhya Pradesh).

" * • . , "*7262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC¹. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

STATE: MADHYA PRADESH

TEHSIL: RAJPUR

|NAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE |

DISTRICT: BADWANI

SURVEY NO.

0.2270

1. KHAJURI

0,1470

424/1,424/2 (GL) 424/3/1 424/3/2 I 424/3/3 | 424/3/4 J

422(GCT)

427

0.0108 0.4680 0.2952

2. RELWAKHURD

396/1 -i 396/2 y 396/3 J 428/1 395 399 429(GCT) 390/1 391 389 (G.DRAIN) 387/1 (GL) 75/8 75/10 75/11 75/12 75/3 75/2,74/8 76(GL) 77/2 77/1 42/12 42/1 78 (G. DRAIN) 80/4 80/3 80/2 80/1 81/4 82 27/1/1 (GL) 27/1//1/2(GL) 27/1/1/1 75/8

0.0209 0.1600 0.2508 0.0216 0.2380 0.2808 0.0508 0.0288 0.1236 0.0104 0.2819 0.0005 0.1235 0.0033 0.1720 0.0839 0.1584 0.0349 0.3242 0.0171 0.0636 0.1631 0.1451 0.1904 0.0396 0.2213 0.0104 0.1250 0.3574 0.02207263

(NAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE

| SURVEY NO. |

RELWAKHURD (Confd)

3. JETHAN

72 (G.DRAIN) 70/1 69/2 63/6 63/4 62/1 62/2 61/1/2. 61/2 (GL) 1 (River) 3 ,4(G.DRAIN) 5

4. LINGAWA

0.0248 0.4444 0.0619 0.2072 0.1856 0.3783 0.0280 0.1890 0.1800 0.0659 0.0348 0.2300 0.5904

0.0540

54/1 -. 54/2 >• 54/3 J 55/1 -N 55/2 I 55/3 r 55/4 J 56/1 56/2 57 94/1 (G.DRAIN) 100 101 99/2 99/3 99/1 96 93 (WBM Road) 122/1 122/2 123/2

121(GL) 6 (River) 1

5. BAKWADI

6. BASVI

65 66/2

71(PAHAD)

73

72

0.1768 0.0658 0.6840 0.0329 0.0527 0.0623 0.3728 0.1266 0.1764 0.3630 0.0324 0.2000 0.0300 0.0500 0.8280 0.0506 0.2203 0.2232 0.2808 0.1971 0.1971 0.2336

-i

,7264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBERS,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(iifl

INAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE |

0.7738

SURVEY NO.

84/1

BASVI (Conf d)

0.0985 0.0146 0.5256 0.4562 0.2263 0.2180 0.0116 0.0146 0.2774 0.0620 0.0146 0.2555 0.5183

0.0584 0.2190

}

0.2414 0.4453

0.4672

} }

7. NIHALI

0.2518 0.5255 0.1383 0.0720 0.4104 0.7704

0.0190 0.0947 0.2310 0.5288

0.0224

84/2 83 90(G.DRAIN) 89/1,88/1,89/8 96/1 99(PAHAD) 100 101 150(GCT) 159 157 156 (Road) 155 153/1 153/2 153/3 205(G.DRAIN) 219/1 219/2 219/3 217 218/1 218/2 218/3 245/1 245/2 245/3 247/1,247/2 249 40/1(PAHAD) 39(GL) 38 35/1 35/2 33 (G.DRAIN) 16/1/2 16/1/1 15/2/5 15/1 14(WBM Road)7265

|NAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE |

SURVEY NO.

NIHAU (Confd)

19/4

0.1100

8. JULWANIYA

0.3981 0.0030 0.1676 0.1355 0.4169 0.5040 0.0291 0.5256 0.1480

12 13(PAHAD) 9/8 9/7 9/1 10 7/1 (HILL) 6 84 71 (WBM Road)

0.0395 0.4680

90/1,90/3 -i

90/2,90/4 J

98(G.DRAIN) 101 116(G.DRAIN) 117 114AIISubdivi.No. 119/1 118(G.DRAIN) 135,136/3,136/4 128 130,126/9 220(GL) 219 218/1 19

0.0176 0.1008 0.0191 0.0983 0.4752 0.1296 0.0270 0.6336 0.0140 0.8856 0.0305 0.0103 0.2626 0.0415 0.2664

18/1 ^ 18/2 I 18/3 f 18/4 J

17(G.DRAIN)

0.0196 0.2948

16/1 -| 16/2 I 16/3 f 16/4 J

22 (G.DRAIN)

36

0.0246 0.2484 0.6026

35/2 K "I 35/2 KH [ 35/2 G J7266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2(K)1/AGRAH AY ANA 17, 1923 [PART II—Sk< \ 3(ii)J AREA IN HECTARE |NAf E OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO.

JUL VAMYA (Cont'd)

0.1161

39/1

}

9. DEVLA

0.1270 0.0148 0.5128 0.0331 0.0235 0.0225 0.3534 0.1008 0.0920

0.2409 0.1258 0.2088 0.0245 0.0677 0.0288

0.0860 0.1368 0.1105 0.0912 0.1104 0.1460 0.0525 0.0236 0.0068

39/2 39/3 34 27/1/2 (Road) 29 72(G.DRAIN) 84 197 198/1 201 204/1 204/2 210/4 210/6 194 210/7 210/1 190/1 190/2 193 189 188 187 185 183 184/3 177 (G.DRAIN) 184/1 184/2 178 180 179/1/1 (GL)

0.3312 0.0001 0.1872 0.4103 0.0278 0.5714 0.0385 0.2289 0.0962 0.4248

64/1

61/2

64/2

63 (GL)

60 59(G.DRAIN)

58/1

58/2

>7267

(NAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE |

SURVEY NO.

DEVLA (Cont'd)

57(G.DRAIN)

10. SANGVI

53 (GL)

52 40/2

1/4

0.0506 0.0097 0.1440 0.1951 0.1003

11. PANAWA

1/1/1 (GL)

1/1/2(GL)

1

180/3 180/4 180/5 180/6 554,552/2 555 552/1 (G.DRAIN) 551 548 549 545 456(G.DRAIN) 543 542 (Road) 541/1/1 (GL) 486 541/3/2/1 494

0.0332 0.0684 0.0677 0.1720 0.1249 0.1253 0.1139 0.1826 0.1422 0.0133 0.1272 0.3492 0.0515 0.2190 0.0176 0.1746 0.0394 0.2599 0.4047 0.0494 0.2412 0.0506

0.4099

493/1 1 493/2 J 489/2 -. 489/3 \-

489/1/1/1/1 -J

12. BALSAMUND

488 104

0.0270 0.2164

106/1/2

105 106/2

107 120-131

120,124

120(Canal)

123/3-128

0.0233 0.1087 0.0116 0.0349 0.0349 0.4118 0.0155 0.03107268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8,2(X)1/AGRAHAY AN A 17, 1923 [PART 11—SEC, l(ii)] SURVEY NO. AREA IN HECTARE |

|NAME OF VILLAGE

BALSAMUND (Cont'd)

123-128-130 0.0572

123,106,126,127,129 0.0572 122 0.2564 66 (G.DRAIN) 0.0457 65/2 0.1942 64 0.0621 65/1 0.2000 61/1/1/1/1 *\ 0.7925 61/1/1/1/2 61/1/1/1/3 61/1/1/1/4 61/1/1/1/5 61/1/1/2 61/1/2 61/3/4

0.0167

61/5 J

8/1/1 -,

8/1/2

8/3 -J 10/2 0.2782 11 0.0699 12/2 0.3456 19 0.2952 20/8 0.1126 20/6 0.2160 21/6/1 0.0186 21/1 (Road) 0.0248 23 0.3807 22/1 -\ 0.9090 22/2 22/3 I 22/4 f 22/5 22/6 -)

13. MATMUR

47(GL) 0.7488 49/1 ->. 0.0612 49/2 49/3 I 49/4 [ 49/5 49/6 -J7269 SURVEY NO.

AREA IN HECTARE | NAME OF VILLAGE

MATMUR (Conf d)

49/7 -^

(From Previous Page)

49/8 49/9 I 49/10 f~ 49/11 49/12 -J 53 (G. DRAIN)

0.0252 0.0432

0.3528

0.3240

0.5112

81/1 \ 81/2 J 82/1 ~) 82/2 >• 82/3 J 80/1 I 80/2 J 77/1 ^i 77/2 r

77/3,82/4^

0.2636

70/1 K "*> 70/1 KH >- 70/2 J

14. SALJKALA

75,74/2

71/1/1

130 92 (G.DRAIN)

123

0.1728 0.0216 0.0661 0.0719 0.2013 0.2770

131/1 "I 131/2 -J 164/1-164/2 165/1-165/2 163/1/1 (G.DRAIN)

0.3600 0.0540 0.1764

160/1 -N

160/2

160/3

160/4

160/5 J

159 161

0.1241 0.0504 0.0432

158/1 —i 158/2 L 158/3 | 158/4 -J7270 THE GAZbYlK OF INDIA: DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)] AREA IN HECTARE |

SURVEY NO.

|NAME OF VILLAGE

SALIKALA (Confd)

From Previous Page

158/5 -s 158/6 I 158/7 f 158/8 J

160

0.1406 0.3600

240/3 -, 240/4 L 240/5 [ 240/2 J

256/1 (G.DRAIN)

257 258-259/1-259/8

240/18

240/9-240/17

269 240/1/16-268

270/390

0.0216 0.0432 0.1224 0.1457 0.2016 0.1230 0.3148 0.3135 0 3197

[No.R-31015/24/2

H ARISH KUMAR. Under Secy.

7271 7272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8.2(X)1/AGRAHAYANA 17.1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)|

_rm_

3630GI/2001—107274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2(X)1/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 |PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7275 7776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; DECEMBER 8,2W1/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7277 727H THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBERS, 2(X)1/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SHC. 3(ii)] 7279 7280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j 728) 363()G1/2(X)1—117282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBERX.2001/AGRAHAYANA 17. 1923 [PAKI II—Sue. 3(ii)] 7283 7284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC 3QQ] 7285

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2001

S. o. 3311.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government tnat it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum products from the Panewadi (Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manglya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of kjmg the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be Iai4 and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of die Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object m writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V.P. Pathak, Competent Authority, Mumbai- Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Limited, 26, Park Road, lndore-452003 (Madhya Pradesh).

Schedule

(Annexed)

7286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2(X) 1 /AGR AHAY AN A 17.1923 [PART II—Sn<\ 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT: BADWANI

STATE: MADHYA PRADESH

TEHSIL: SENDHWA

NAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO.

161 0.1296

1. JAMLI

160 0.2890

162/1(GL) -\ 0.0252

162/2

162/3/1

162/3/2

159/1 I 0,0576 159/2 f

155/1 A 0.2798

155/1/1

155/1/2

155/1/3

155/1/4

155/2 '

0.7524

153/1

153/2

153/3

153/4

153/5 J

131/1 0.6751

131/2 )"

131/3 J

150(G.DRAIN) 0.0216

133 0.4172

136 0.0843

137/1 | 0.0576

137/2 J

135 0.1944

134/1 \ 0.1296

134/2 J

121 0.4536

117/1 \ 0.2304

117/2 J

7287

| AREA IN HECTARE

|NAME OF VILLAGE

| SURVEY NO.

0.1224

JAMU (Coof d)

115

0.2376

116 \ 0.0180

106/1

106/2

0.0288

65 (G.DRAIN)

^ 0.2124

109/1/1

109/1/2

109/1/3

109/1/4

10S/2

109/3

0.3240

112 1 0.1080

111/1

111/2

0.2268

0.1116

0.2592

"I 0.0216

96 87/1

87/2

I 0.1368

88/1

88/3

0.3672

35 > 0.014*

32/1

32/2

32/3

32/4

32/5

32/6

0.1224

28 27

0.6214

0.1908

0.1260

0.0180

0.2628

0.4536

24(G.PRAIN) 13 207288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 4 VILLAGE NAME | 8URVEY NO. AREA IN HECTARE |

JAML1 (Confd)

18/1,18/2,18/9 ^

0.3842

18/3,18/4

18/5

18/8

18/6,18/10

18/7

2.MADHGAON

36/1 >

0.5205

36/2

36/3

36/4

36/5

36/6

36/7

36/8

36/9 ^

35(PAHAD)

0.0466

3.KALALDA

86/346 (Highway)

0.0652

0.1152

86/3

0.3456

86/4

0.1257

4.VAKI

0.1728

0.0216

44/1

1 0.0936

44/2

26/1

0.5076

26/2

26/3

26/4

26/5

26/6

26/7

30/2 (Road)

0.0159

30/1

\ 0.2329 J

30/3 79RQ

R AREA IN HECTARE | VILLAGE NAME

SURVEY NO. | VAKI (Confd)

30/4

30/5

30/6

30/7

30/8

31/1

31/2

31/3

31/4

31/5 J

77/1

77/2

77/3

74/7

74/6

74/5

74/3

74/4

59 (River)

58(GL)

18(DRAIN)

17/2

19(GCT)

21/1 \

21/2/1

21/2/2

21/2/3

21/2/4

21/2/5

21/2/6

21/3/1 J

36.10 GI/2001—12

From Previous Page

0.8608

0.3060

0.2160

0.4392

0.0504

0.0394

02385

00386

0.1440

0.1008

0.2988

0.0890

0.0692

0.0216

0.70567290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)]

NAME OF VILLAGE

| SURVEY NO. |

AREA IN HECTARE |

VAKI (Cont'd)

21/3/2 >

21/3/3

21/4

From Pre"''""< Page

21/5

21/6

21/7

8.BANIHAR

0.3365

44(GL)

0.0936

46 (G.DRAIN)

0.0288

39/1/1

) 0.3384

39/1/2

39/2

0.0144

38 (GCT)

37/1

0.2592

37/2

37/3

37/4

37/5

37/6

37/7

37/8

37/9

0.5832

0.0360

0.4600

0.1296

4/1 \ 0.3453

4/2

06912

6. NAVALPURA

0.4392

132(GL)

0.1656

131/1

140,136/1

0.3528

139 (GCT)

0 0288

138/2 (Road)

0.03607291

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO.

AREA IN HECTARE

NAVALPURA (Cont'd)

0.0216

138/1

179

0.0612

0.0216

183(GCT)

0.0648

182

0.0382

176/1(GL)

181

0.0380

175/1

0.3528

148/3(GCT)

0.0381

148/2

0.5472

0.0354

146 (Road)

147

0.2628

53/1 >

0.4824

53/2

53/3

53/4

53/5 53/6 J

56(G.DRAIN)

0.0360

0.2088

0.0036

0.2741

61/1 (GL)

60 (Road))

0.0216

2/1/5

0.4284

2/1/1,1/2/4,1/2/2,1/2/5

0.0037

2/1/10,29/2/2

0.0396

2/1/11

0.2160

2/1/3,1/2/3

0.1260

2/1/2

0.0072

0.0902

4(GL)

0.0196

0.0360

6(GL)

0.0471

8,7

0.0504

9(GCT)

0.027872 8 VILLAGE NAME | SURVEY NO. AREA IN HECTARE

NAVALPURA (Cont'd)

10/1

0.1656

0.0911

14/1 1

0.2304

14/2 -*

7.JULWANIYA

218/1 "I

0.2520

218/2 J"

199/1 *|

0.0216

199/2 -"

200/1 1

0.1892

200/2 1

200/3

200/4 '

201/1

0.039c

201/2

201/3

201/4,201/6 J

192/1

0.6644

192/2

192/3

192/4

202 (G.DRAIN)

0.0318

193

0.3384

194 (G.DRAIN)

0.1080

195/1

0.0126

195/2

195/3

185(G.DRAIN)

0.0432

0.5688

159/1 1

159/2 J

0.4356

144/1

144/2 J

143/1/1/1

0.3780

143/1/1/2

143/1/1 729.19

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO.

AREA IN HECTARE

143/1/2 i

JULWANIYA (Conf d)

143/1/1/3

143/1/1/4

143/2

From Previous Page

143/3

143/4

143/5

143/6 141/2 J

0.3936 8. ANJANGAON

62/1/1/1/1/1/1/2

55/2/1/1/1/2 & 62/3

0.3816

54/1

0.1692

13-55

0.1551

13-55 (Canal)

0.0307

14-52/2/1/1/2

0.5154

14-52/2/1/1/2

0.0194

103

0.6902

100

0.6220

99/1

0.0625

83/1(PANCHAYAT LAND)

0.0521

0.2568

77/2-77/3 & 81/2-82/1

81/1/2

0.1674

0.0263

81/2 (Road)

0.0073

77/1/1/4,79/2-80

0.2292

62/1/1/1/1/1/1/2,62/4 I

0.1337

& 62/3,53/3,53/2, &

52/2/1/1/1/2 J

79/1,62/1/6

0.0623

0.0576 9. BHAMNIYA

0.6977

65(G. DRAIN)

0.01927294 THE GAZETTE UF INDIA:DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 10 VILLAGE NAME | AREA IN HECTARE 8URVEY NO. |

BHAMNIYA(Confd)

0.1671

55/1 i

55/2

55/3

55/4

55/5

55/6 55/7

54(G.DRAIN)

0.0180

0.1247

52/1 -I

0.0636

52/2 T

52/3 J

0.0755

0.2160

66(GCT) 67

0.1094

0.3888

0.0114

18/1

18/2

0.0077

17/3

0.1206

17/2

0.1135

17/1

0.0453

16/1/1

0.0624

15/2

0.0106

15/3

0.1728

15/1

0.0863

1/8

0.0690

1/5,2

0.1506

1/7(ROAD)

0.1031

1/4

0.3213

1/2

0.2795

150

0.3982

149/1/1/1(GL)

0.4824

146

0.3876

145/2

0.0383 7211 NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO. AREA IN HECTARE

BHAMNIYA (Conf d)

139/2 *

137(G.DRAIN) 0.0153

114/1/1 l 0.1611

114/1/2 *

113

112

111/1/1 >

111/1/3,111/2

111/3,111/5 I

111/4 '

139/1 1 0.0040

0.0858

0.0564

0.2316

10. SHAHPURA

163 (Road)

136/10

136/9

136/8

136/6,7

132/1

132/2

132/3 J

129(G.DRAIN)

105

106

107

95/1 & 95/2

94/3

110

93/3

92/1

92/2

89/1 ^

89/2

89/3

89/4

89/5 > 0.0120

0.1884

0.0612

0.1080

0.3528

0.0288

0.1512

0.0288

0.2376

0.2808

0.2016

0.0612

0.2520

0.2448

0.1860

0.086472% THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ^FrEMBER8,2(X)l/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC.3(U)] 12.

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO. I

AREA IN HECTARE

SHAHPURA monfd)

89/6

89/7

89/8

89/9

65/1/1

65/1/2

65/2

65/3

161/26 From Previous Page

0.6696

0.0504

0.2196

0.1492

161/27,28

161/32/1

161/33

0.864

0.3240

0.5256

164/170/1,2

169/234

0.2016

0.2520

11.NANDYA

169/236

0.1116

0.0732

169/237/1

0.0216

12.SOLVAN

11/1

11/2

16/1

16/2

16/3

44/1

0.0972

0.2016

0.0216

0.1440

1 0.7668

}

0.0030

0.0216

19(GCT)

0.3852

20/1 1

20/2 J

20/3

0.1476

21/1 1

21/2 J

21/3

39/1

39/2

39/5

0.1224

0.0635

0.3193

0.07837297 13 VILLAGE NAME AREA IN HECTARE SURVEY NO. I

SOLVAN (Cont'd)

0.0122

43(G.DRAIN)

51/1

52/1

}

52/2

49/4

54/1

}

54/2

61/1/1

61/2

61/3

61/4

65/1

65/2 0.4430 0.3672 0.0756 0.0911 0.1269 0.0710 0.0746 0.0432 0.2651 0.2088 0.0137 0.0637 0.2242 0.0477

251(G.DRA1N)

252 0.4129

256 & 255

258 0.0296 0.0229

259 (G. Drain)

260/2

260/1 0.0177 0.2069 0.1060

261(G.Drain)

262/1 3630GI/2001—13

135/2

135/3

}

133/1

133/2 }

133/3 0.4140 0.3348

132(G.DRAIN)

307/2

}

307/3 0.0180 0.3546

3O8(G.DRA1N)

309/3

309/2 0.0648 0.2736 0.0072

310(G.DRAIN)

300/3

299 0.0432 0.4680 0.2880 0.0334

297(GL ABADI)

296/1

296/2

296/3

•

296/4

296/5 0.2195

295(G.DRA1N)

292

291 0.0357 0.5544 0.5436

290(G.DRAIN)

288/6

288/7

} 0.0216 0.4482

275(G.DRAJN)

95 0.0216 0.1440

97(G.DRAIN)

98/1

98/2

98/3

100 0.0648 0^2136 0.1836 0.0180 729')15 | SURVEY NO. | AREA IN HECTARE | 0.1944

|NAME OF VILLAGE

MALVAN (Confd)

\ 0.5256

90/1

90/2

0.1440

0.0180 0.1872

110(G.DRAIN) 139

0.3240

138

0.0108

137(G.DRAJN)

0.4284

136/1.2

|No.R-3IOI5/2f)/2(K)IOR-ll| HARISH KUMAR. Under Secy.

7KX) T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: D E C E M B E R X , 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 17. M>23_[P,vui II -Si-r ^(ii)| 7301 7302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEP. 3(U)] 7303 7304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)1 7305

363OGV2OO1—147306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7307 7308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8,2001/AtfflAHAYANA 17,1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(" 7309

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2001

s. o. 3312.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification under sub-section (1) of section (3) of the said Actfare made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority,Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Punjab Refinery Project, Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited),L.P.G. Bottling Plant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur 342005.

7110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 8,2(X)1/AGRAHAYANA 17.1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)1

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Luni District: Jodhpur State: Rajasthan Name of Village Khasra No.

Part If Any

Area

R.O.U. Biga Biswa Sr. No.

\ 1

1 UTTESAR

102 78

78 1 2

2 2 3 2 1

07 12 15 02 09 01 04 08 01

Cart Track G.L

1 2 1 0 1 1

1 2 3

1 0 1 1 1 2 3

2 PIPARLI

Nala G.L

1

3 KAGNADA

0 3 2 1

11 11 03 17 09 09 01 08 17 05 03 12 14 10 04 12 14

06 03

Cart Track G.L.

3 0 0 2 0 1

78 79 79 82 82 81 83 84 85 170 184 173 174 174 175 175 176 177 178 72 30 28 72 72 74 73 75 76 78 77 63 57

03 03 15 73 n Tehsii: Lunl District: Jodhpur State: Rajasthan

Khasra No.

Part If Any

N a me of Village

R.O.U.

Area

Sr.

Blga

No.

Biswa

04 KAONADA

Cart Track G.L Asphalted Road G.L.

62 81

86 Road G.L.

2 Min

92 97

99 1

99 2

103

102

101 4

107

111 111 2

112

112 1

114

4 SUBDAND

06 0

03 5

05 2

05 1

14 0

19 1

05 1

13 0

07 3

19 1

17 0

06 0

02 2

06 1

08 1

13 1

12 1

08 0

04 1 2 2 3 0

Cart Track G.L

1

09 6 CHAK DHAWA

114 225 228 227 175 172 39

42 Cart Track G.L

69 37

36 2

63 2

13 V 01 02 .01

18 18 1 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 1

15 09 11 04 1 0 27312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART 11—SK<\ 3(ii)l

Tshsll: Ltfni District: Jodhpur State: Rajasthan

Area

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Part If Any

R.O.U.

Biga

Biswa Sr. No.

6 CHAKDHAWA

3 1 0 0 0

6 SINLI

12 02 13 01 01 18 17 14

2 90 60 59 58 151 150 150 148 147 147 146 145

01 10

144

0 2 0

144

1 2

19 14

Cart Track G.L

1 3

0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1

13 14 03 03 16

Cart Track G.L.

1

0 0 1 0 0

1 Cart Track G.L

08 01 17 12 11 03

Cart Track G.L.

141 204 200 201 203 203 203 209 210 222 211 211 212 213 213 137 136 135 112

1 2 0

105

12 13

105 105 103

0 0 0 07313 Tehsll: Luni District: Jodhpur State: Rajasthan

Part If Any

Khasra No.

Area

Name of Village

Sr. No.

3 6

1 SINU

R.O.U. Biga Biswa Co***-)

26; RoadG.L

Z 104 81 81 92

OHAWA

1065 1 1065 1022

8 GELAWAS

96 1073 1068 1067 1067 1066 1993 1065 1994 1984 1021 1020 1019 1018 1017 1016 118

119 2

116

107 113

112 126

127 104

1 4 0 1

06 15 02 09 1

02 1

00 1

05 1

05 0

02 2

12 1 1

15 00 0

13 1

10 0

15 0

09 1

15 0

16 0

10 0

19 1

09 4

03 0

01 2

03 0 4

11 06

06 1

10 0

S.H.-28 G.L

98 97 2

?rO()GI/2(X)l—15

08 0

13 1 1 1

00 14 13

18 14 2 07314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER8,2(K)1/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PARI II—SKC. 3(ii)]

Tehsil: Luni District: Jodhpur State : Rajasthan

Area

Part If Any

Kha^ra No.

R.O.U.

Sr.

Name of Village

Biswa

Biga

No. •

18 GELAWAS

Cd-rU)

60 61

61 2

65 37

37 1

03 1

15 1

09 0

10 1

08 2 0

14 0 1

04 2 0

Cart Track G.L

30 29

31 River - Jojri G.L. 9

94 River - Jojri G.L. 0

07 2

04 0

11 0

LUNAWAS

KHURD

105 104

106

103

102

101

01 1

14 1

12 2

04 1

02 0

15 0

Cart Track G.L

77 2

77 45

07 4

11 0

13 2

Cart Track G.L

154

Min

32 31

03 4

14 0

19 1

01 2

00 2 0

01 05

Cart Track G.L

29 27

0 0

01 18 0

12 LUNAWAS CHARNAN

37 36 Cart Track G.L 0

027315

Tehsil: Lunl District: Jodhpur State: Rajasthan

Area

Part If Any

Sr.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

R.O.U.

Blga |

Biswa

No.

4 \

LUNAWAS

CHARNAN

8 7

15 14

05 14 1

09 0 2 0

15 2 1

12 09 1

00 3

07 11 KHATAWAS

21 170 Cart Track G.L.

195

197

198

199

200

208

204

207 206

150 Cart Track G.L.

70 69

67 61

04 1

15 4

06 3

19 0

01 01

12 0 1

03 0

11 0

13 0

02 2

09 0

01 0

05 1

16 1

16 10

14 2 3

16 12 BEVTA

263

298

Cart Track G.L.

299 336 337

334

334 400

332 331

07 3

08 0 3

14 2 1

14 03 04 0

19 0

0871 K> T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER8,2001/AGRAHAYANA 17,1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)]

Tehsil: Luni District: Jodhpur State : Rajasthan

R.O.U. > Vrea

o. Part If Any

Name of Village I

Biga

Biswa

Sr. No.

3 1

08 BEVTA

330 329

324

325

326

1 0

02 1

16 1 1

19 01 0

Cart Track G.L

318 317

316

315

Cart Track G.L.

314 306

398

304

302 301

01 0 0

01 0

15 1 0

04 02 0

03 0

10 2

00 1

04 KHUDALA

33 31

9 8

5 4 3 2 1

05 1 1

12 09

11 0 1 2 0

17 2 1 1

07 02 04

01 0 1

Cart Track G.L

361

241 240

244

243 1085

03 0

10 2

08 0 1 1

LUNAWAS KHARA

JHANWAR

1534

1533 Cart Track G.L.

1532

1462

01 10 13 18 i

02 0 1

13 02 27117 Tehsil : Luni District: Jodhpur State : Rajasthan

Part If Any

Khasra No.

Name of Village

Sr. No.

1 .

1530

Area

R.O.U. Biga Biswa

JHANWAR

1529

<>.-,. 7.-. *)

1465

1469

1470

1470 1

1471

1477

1478

1479

1480

1449

1448

1448 1

1484

1485

1488

1489

1490

1491

1438

1437

1426

1427

1419

1420

1422

1421

1402

1401

1372 1371

1370

1369

1368

1367

1364

1425 Cart Track G.L. W()G[/200l—K>

14 07 13 1 0 0 1

07 0

02 1

11 1

16 2

00 1

04 1

09 0

04 0

12 0

14 0

17 1

06 1

0 1 0 1

01 01 04 04 10 11 05 07 10 1

11 0

19 0

06 1

00 1

05 1

16 0

18 1

11 1

15 0

05 2 2 0

02 0

057MN T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER8.2001/AGRAHAYANA 17. ll>23 |PAKI II--Sr..- 3(ii)l 3 4 1 1 0 01 2 1294 15 JHANWAR 0 10 1295 1296 1297

Cart Track GL

1302 130S- 1306 1307

Asphalted Road G.L.

1156 478

AsphaltedRoad G.L.

476 472 471 468 3 467 467 467 467

Min 1 2

3 467 466 326 Cart Track G.L.

240 241 258 242 244 246 248 252 251 250 249

275 1 279 278 280

281

1 281 286

19 02 09

0 2

4 0

06 02 06

11 ' 17

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0

1 2 0 2

1 2

0 3

10 09

Cart Track G.L.

Cart Track G.L

283 285 73 64

1531

0 0

03 02

1 0

[No. R-1I01.V1V200IOR-II] HARISN KUMAR. Under Secy7319 MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 1"2th November, 2(101 - S.O/3313.—lii pursuance-of Section 17-of the Industrial DispuU-s Act, 1947 (14 of ,1947), 'the Central Government hereby publishes the award -of the Central Government industrial Tribunal; Kanpur as "hcfwn in-the annexure m the indu^rial Dispute between the employer-, in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman which w.i-, received bv ihc Central Government on 9-11-2001.

[No. L-12012/8/97-IR(B-JI)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Sccv

ANNEXURE

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

Industrial Dispute No. 48/98

In the matter of dispute :

BETWEEN

The Assistant-General- Secretary. U P Bank of Baroda Employees Union, C/o Bank of Baroda, • 901165 Dua Market Iftikharaba'd. Chamra Mandi, Kanpur-208001.

AND

The Regional Manager. Bank of Baroda, .' Gumti No. 5. Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Centra! Government Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide if? notification No. L-12(W2/8/9T-IR(B-in dated 1O-O3-9S has referred the rollow'ing dispute for adjudication to this rribunal— .

Whether tee action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of S/Sri Rajesh Kumar. S'o Hiri.-.h Chandra and Rajesh Kumar, S/o Mohan Lal Part time sweepers with effect from 31-3-96 and 18-7-96 respectively i" legr.! and justified ? If not. to what relief the sa'd workman is entitled ?" 2. On 2^-10-2001.when the case was taken up'for hern-ire; and -record ns evidence on behalf the management, the autho- rised repi-¹' ...t.ative of the Union raising ths dispute on behalf of the concerned workman made', an endorsement on the statement of claim to the i ffect that the nre-'en' chrni H not pressed In view of. his endorsement made on "ihc claim, the trlhup.fil is leff v;th no other,option but to holdthat tlic-cln>m or iiv" concerned workman is liable to be dismissed as not pr^'-ed and the-concerned workman- is. not .entitled ti< an\ le'ief in mwa-nci' -of Jhe reference order, 3630 GIJ2001"—17.

3. Accordingly it is held that the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the present leference. The refeience is decided accordingly against the workman.

R P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 241-2001

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2001 S.O. 3314.—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 Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in telation to the management of Canara Bunk and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2001.

[No. L-12012/97/91-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", 111 MAIN. 11 [ CROSS. II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD.

Yr'SHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 24th October. 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kuikarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGlT-cum-Labour Court.

Bangalore.

C R. No. 68/91

I PARTY

Shri Prasanna Keshavachar, Pigmy Collector, Temple Road, Nuggchally, Hassan Distt.-561171.

II PARTY

The Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank, H.O.J.C. Road, BangaIore-560002.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the poweis con- lerred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012|97f9I-IR(B-II) dated 1st November, 1991 for adjudication en the following schedu'c :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Cannra Bank in terminatina the services of Shri Prasanna Keshavachar, Pigmy Collector is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman ent;tled ?"73.0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I W S E C. 3(iij] 2. First party w;is working as a Pigmy Agent to the Second Party Bank. His services were terminated by cancelling the agency and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

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

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

3, The first party joined the service of the Second Party management as Pigmy Collector and he was collecting money from the merchants and other customers of the Bunk. Details oi" this 'cheme is stated in para 2 of the Claim Statement. It is also said that many other banks have pigmy agents.

6. It is the furlher case of the first party that at the time of appointment there was nn agreement entered into hetween the first party workman and the Second Party Bank wi'lh many conditions. The Second party without applyine its mind to the facts of the case passed an order of termina- tion on 1-6-1990 and the same is not correct. The order of termination was passed by the incompetent authority. There was no misconduct on th- part of the first party. No charge sheet was given and therefore the order '>f termination is illegal.

7. First parly workman lias further said that he is a work- man and the dispute is maintainable. Terminalio'i is not followed bv complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. First party for these reasons and for many other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

8. The case of the Second P&rty in brief is as under :

9. The main contention of the Second Party is that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the first party and the management at all.

10. It is the further case of the management that there was only a relationship of Principal and Agent, Details of agree- ment are given in the counter. There was no controlling provision of the bank on the agents. There was no fixed salary as applicable to regular employee?. The workman Is not entitled for any benefits. Repeatedly il is said ihnt there is no relationship of Employer and Employee between the first party and the bank. Management for these reasons and for many other reasons as stated in detail has prayed to reject the prayer of the first party.

11. It- is seen from the records that this case i\ remanded b\ the High Court of Karnataka hy its order dated 30th March. 2001 :n Writ Peti'ion No. 593/1995 12. After remand parties have not adducej any evidence. I have heard both sides and perused all the relevant document?.

13. Now in view of the decision of the Hon'blc Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2001 SCW. 749, there is no merit in the contention of the bank that the first partv is u workman. Now it is clear that the first party is a workman 14. In view of this legal position, the manaaement has to prove misconduct independently and as per inles but in mv opinion there is not an iota of material to prove the misconduct alleged against the first party. Admittedly no regular enquiry was held and no charge sheet was given before terminating the services of the first party.

15. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that the action of the management is net correct and accordingly I proctcd to pass the following cder :

ORDER

The management is not justified in stopping the services of the first party workman as Pigmy Agent anJ in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Sunreme Court of India, the manage- ment is directed to take the fiist party as Pigmy Agent and regularise his services as per rules keepi"? in mmd fie principles hqld in the decision of the Hon'hlc Supreme Court of India.

(Dictated to PA transcribed bv her corrected anri signed by me on 24th October, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 4-10-2001

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2001 S.O. 3315.—[n pursuance of Section 17 of the Indujuial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centul Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers In relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-11-2001.

fNo. L-120l2|104|94-IR(B-lD]

C, GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No, CGIT/LC/R/135/91

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai, Shri Mudhav Ray Mehta, R/o 530/2, Ramdass Ghati Ghosipura, Lashkar, Gwalior,

- • Applicant

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce, through Managing Director, H Block Connaujriit Place, Harsha Bhawan, New Delhi.

. . • • Non applicant

AWARD Passed on this 17th day of October, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-12O12/1O4/91-IR(B-II) dated 26-7-91 hos referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhopal vide letter No. PEN/C/226 dated 28-6-89 in dismissing the service of Shri Madhav Ray Mehta, Head Cashier is justified 7 If not, what relief the workman is entitled for 7"

2. The case for the workman is that initially he was appoin- ted as peon in the Oriental Bank of Commerce on 1-7-74 and was posted in Churn branch of Rajasthan region. Later on he was transferred to Gwalior branch in the year 1975. There- after he was transferred to Shivpuri branch in the year 1983. He was promoted by the management to 'he post of Head cashier category-E on 24-12-87. At that time Shri S. K. Sharma was posted as Branh Manager at Shivpuri, He con- tinued there as Branch Manager from 1985 onwards. He had personal prejudices against the workman und therefore he tried to punish him anyhow or other by making false allegation of misconduct against him. All these allegations were found false and therefore Shri S, K. Shaima could not succeed in his attempt.

3. The workman further alleges that the Branch Manaaer Shri S. K. Sharma called him in the tourist hotel at Shivpuri on 21-8-88 under the excuse that the Regional Manager and the Personal Manager wanted him there for some wrgent work.

7321

When he reached the tourist hotel, he was locked in the room by Shri Sharma and others and w*s forced to sign some documents claiming to admit some misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. He remained in wrongful confinement w.e.f. 21-8-68 to 25-8-88 in tourist hutel, Shivpuri. Thereafter he was taken to Bhopal by tho said officers in their own car without giving him any transfer advance etc. He was served with a chargesheet at Bhopal on 11-10-88. The allegations in the chargeiheet were that excess receipt of Rs. 3000 from Mohan Medical Stores, Shivpuri in the bank was distribuled between P. M. Sheikh, Shri A. K. Sharma and the workman. It was wrongly stated in I he chnrgesheet thai he got Rs. 1200 out of the said amount of Rs, 3000 Mohan Medical Stores Shivpuri never deposjttd any excess amount in the Bank as alleged by the management. The management held the DE againit him in utter disicgard of the tripartite settlement and principles of natural justice. He was not given adequate opportunity to del end his case pro- perly by engaging defence assistant, The entire enquiry pro- ceedings was conducted in English for which he made a written objection to the Enquiry Officer who never considered his request in this reipect. The Enquiry Officer wrongly held tlic charges proved against him. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and is based on no evidence. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted the teport of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dismissal againut him on 28-6-89. He preferred an appeal against 'lie order of dis- missal before the competent authority who never considered the appeal judiciously. The Appellate Authonty also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of dismissal passed by the management. The order of dismissal passed by tl.e manage- ment against him is illegal which deserves lo be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

4. The case for the management is that the workman was promoted to the post of Head Cashier in the routine post. Earlier he was punished by the management for his alleged misconduct and he challenged the punishment imposed on him. The management of Shri S. K. Sharma, Branch Manager Shivpuri have no mallacc against the workman as alleged by him. The chargesheet dated. 11-10-88 regarding the commis- sion of misconduct was issued to the wprkmsn and he sub- mitted his reply to the same. His reply was found unsatisfactory and therefore the DE was conducted against him according to the provisions of bipartite settlement ar>d principles of natural justice. The workman participated in the DE and cross examine the prosection 2witnesses effectively. The Enquiry Officer gave him adequate opportunity to defend his c£ise properly. The workman decided (o defend himself without taking the help of defence Aisistant. The Enquiry Officer never refused to allow him lo engage detonce assistant to assist him during the enquiry proceedings. The workman never objected that the enquiry proceedings should not be conducted in English language. At the same time, the work- man is fully conversant with English.

5. The management further alleges that the workman voluntarily admitted the commission of dlli"*ej misconduct before the competent authority. No force was used by Ihe management in obtaining his admission regarding Ihe com- mission of misconduct as stated in the 'harjesheet dated 18-10-88. The Enquiry Officer submitted the-report after considering the entire material

6. The following issues have been framed in this case and my findings thereon are noted hereinafter :—

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

2. Whether Ihe management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribunal 7

3. Whether the charges of misconduct are pioved on the facts of the case '!

4 Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal ?

5. Relief and costs ?

7. Issues No. I & 2:

From the perusal of DE papers, it appeal? that the charge- sheet regarding misconduct dated 11-10-88 was served on the the workman and he submitted his reply to the same. His reply was not found satistactory Hnd therefore the Dli wai, conducted against him. He fully participated in ihe enquiiy proceedings and cross examined the witnesses also. Adequate opportunity was given to him to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer, He had put his defence oelore the Enquiry Officer during Ihe Enquiry proceedings. Tn view of all these facts, it is amply established that the workman was given ample opportunity to defend his case during the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer never relused the request of woikman in engaging the defence assistant to piove his defence during the enquiry proceedings. The workman had fully understood the enquiry proceedings and ihcveiore he parti- cipated in the same effectively. No prejudice has been caused to him by holding the DE for the comission of alleged misconduct. It is therefore held that the DE was properly conducted against the workman by the management. The management is not required to adduce any further evidence lo prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. Issues No. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 3 :

It has been stated by the workman that be w;is wrongly confined in the tourist hotel at Shivpuri by the officers of the Bank W.e.f. 21-8-88 to 25-8-88 and his admission regarding the commission of misconduct was obtained by ihem by exer- cising undue influence and force on him. He never gave any voluntary admission regarding the commission of alk'n-d mis- conduct as alleged by the management. His admission recorded on Ex. M-I is not voluntary and therefore it cannot be accepted in evidence against him. The workman has not produced uny employee of tourist hotel, Shivpuri to prove that d"];ny 21 ti-88 to 25-8-88 some responsible officers of the Bank had stayed there, No record of the tourist hotel in this inspect has been Tied by the workman to substantiate his clitlm. In this way, the workman has failed to produce the best evidence in support of his defence. His statement in this respect appears to be an afterthought and without any substance.

y. The workman was charged for committing the misconduct regarding the excess receipt of Rs. 3000 on 2-5-KS from M.'s. Mohan Medical Slores and instead of depositing the excess nmount with the Bank, he pocketed Rs. 1200 out of Rs, 3000 und remaining amount was distributed among Shri A. K. Sharma and Shri P. K. Sheikh. This fact was found to be proved in the enquiry proceedings. During ihe enquiry pro- ceedings, the prosecution witness Shri P. M. Sheikh specifically stated that the excess amount of Rs. 3000 was received from Mohan Medical Stores which was never deposited in iiis A/C and out of this amount workman kept Rs. 1200 himsell- Not a single question was put to him during the cross exami- nation by the workman. He could have easily put his defence legarding this offence as stated in the statement of claim. His admission in writing Ex. M-I clearly shows that he accepted the receipt of Rs. 1200 from the excess amount of Rs. 3000 received from Mohan Medical Stores to the Bank, There is no reason on record to hold that the workman had given his confessional statement in writing Ex. M-I under duress of the management officers. This very confessional statement proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Enquiry Officer rightly accepted the said confessional statement of the workman in his report,

10. The DI. was conducted against the wo'kman in a just anu proper manner. The Enquiry Officer rightly hold the charges proved against the workman. This court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the order of Discipline y Authority. The report does not appear to be perverse at all. At the same time, the workman has not been able to establish that his admission Ex. M-I was obtained by the management by exer-73'.2 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA ; DEC. 8, 20017 "AORAflAYANA 17, 192.3. |PART I l - S ^ t, 3(it)1 cisirn: undue iniki'jncs on him In view of all these facts, it is held thai the eluuge ol misconduct has been fully established against the ivorkman. Issue No. 3 is answereJ accordingly.

11. Issue No. 4 :

The chaigc of misconduct regarding mis-appropriation of Rs. 1200 of depusitcj- in the Bank has been fully established by the management. In such a circumstance, the management has lost confidence in the workman as a serious misconduct has been committed by him. Such persons do' not deserve to be retained in the bank service at all. The order of dismissal from service passed by the management dited 28-6-89 is perfectly proportionate to the facts of the case. This punish ment does not require any interference by this tribunal. Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.

12. Issue No. 5 :

On the reasons stated above, it is held thai the OE was properly conducted against the workman. The charges of misconduct have been fully established from records. The order of dismissal from service passed by the management against the workman on 2S-6-89 is perfectly legal and it docs- not require any interference in thiy case. The workman m not entitled to t,ny relief as claimed by him. 'Ihe reference is answered accordingly in favour of the management nntl against the workman.

1.3. Copy of the award be sent lo the Government of lnd:a.

Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M, RAI, Presiding Officer For the Management : Mr Peter Barln, Manager (Per- sonnel),

For the work'rrnin ;' Sri GbpaL Narain Lal, General Sec- retary, Bihar "Stale Bank of Baroda Employees' Association, Patna.

PRESENT :

Sri S. K.. Mishra, Presiding ''Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bailc'v Road,' Patna.

AWARD

, The 30th October, 20M

The Central. Government in exercise of jrjwcrs¹ ujs. 10H) (d) of the Industrial Disputes, Act by order No.' 12012|160| 92-IR (B-Ml dated' 30-7-1991 initially referred the-following industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal No. 1., Dhunbad-between the Management of Bank of Baroda, North Bihar Branch, Muznffarpur and their work- man Sri O. P- Sinha as represented by, ^ihar Stal™ Hunk of Baroda Employees Assouintion, fcrazer Road, Patna for ad- judication :—.

'•Whether the action of the Manur 'iiieru of stooping vine increment with cumulative effect of Shri O.P. Sinha, Head-Cashier, Bank of Baroda, was right and justified?'If not, to what relief is the woik- man entitled?" .

2 Subsequently the. Central i'o.vernmcnt by -order No. L-120l2[160|92tIR (B-ll) dated 3-S-2000 withdrew the pro- ceedings in relation, to the said .Industrial Tribunal. No. 1 Dhanbad and ,finnsferted, it to.-this Tubun;>I for adjudica- tion. ,

73^3

ORDER

Office action takei Order with Liu si^ruitiL'v of the court

,1c ol order or

wi;h dale SI. Da No, pi 'oci'cdings

4 1

Thi.i order K on h;- '.;" '• "ii of laii-moss of Ihe doin<"\ic\_- enquiiy.

44. If 5-6-2001

2. The Ccri1i.il d - v o iJ • -1_i. in exercise ol' powv.-s u ;. 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Di .pi.-.-s Act by order No. ^012 '! 6O/97.-IR(B-lI),) dated 30-7-1992 initially lefeired the following i cliMrinl di-pu'c ;o the Central Govcrmncnt Industrial Tribunal No. 1, DK.nb. d bci.Wien

the Management of Bank of Baroda, Norih Hilii'i" UrLnh. Mu/:'HVr-

pur and their workman Sri O.P. Sinha as represented by Bihar Sta;e

Bankol' Baroda Employees Association, Fjazw Road, Paira for

Adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Siopp i'g one UVTO

ment vvith cumulative clleel of Sh. O. .P. Sinhn. IJead-Cushicr Bark

of Baroda,, was right iT.d justified? If not. 10 v\l',ct relief is the

workman cntitk-d 7",

3, Subsequently the Central Government by order No. 1.-12012/160/

92/1R (B-TI) dated 3-8-2000 withdraw the p r o a v d i n gs in relation

to the said industrial dispute from the Ceiuial Governirent Indus-

trial Tribunal No. 1, Dhi'nbad. and trunstVnvd ii IO ihi* Ti ibuiuil for

adjudication.

4, Both parties have liled their respective wiiitiJ"i, ^tatcjiiriils. A

rejoinder to the wri'ini \uin nti-iU of Ilie M;-ri:pinci)i luis also

b:-en fili-d on behalf df •,lu- workman. Thr ;.dniilted facts of 1 he

eiisc in brief are that ihe wC'iknian Sri O.P. Sinha was appointed

by the Management ol' Rank of Baroda a* Clerk-ci.m-Cashier and

was posted at Mrzafhirpv" i:: ihe year 197s• Later on he was

transferred to "UmaiK'.jMir, Branch, Bank (if H ; i o da us Assistant

Head CiKhiiY, VVhiK- w n k i rg :\t Umamigar tb.e w o i t m an was

7324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3(ij)] 1 2 3 4

5. The Management has not filed the original record of the domes- tic enquiry. Instead they have filed zorox copies of the following documents :—

(a) The charge shoot dated 7-4-1987.

(h) The order of findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 12-9-1988. (c) The order dated 3-7-89 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Re- gional Manager North Bihar Branches, Patna) imposing the punish- ment.

(d) The order dated 4-12-1989 of the Appellate Authority (Assistant General Manager, Eastern Zonal Office, Caltcuta)/confirming the findings and the punishment.

(e) Zcrox copies of the proceedings of the dorr.cstice enquiry date- wise dated 25^5-1987, 24-8-1987, 17-9-1987, 8-10-1987, 13-11-1987 and 25-11-1987.

(f) Depositions of the three witnesses examined by the Management and the deposition of one withness examined on behalf of the delin- quent workman.

(g) Letters, office notes and other documents which the Management had filed during the domestic enquiry in support of the charges.

(h) The Minute of proceeding dated 22-2-1989 before the Discipii- nary Aulhori'y enumenating the objections and pleas taken by the defence representative before him with regard to the punishment.

(i) Rejoinder filed on behalf of the Management to the defence statement before the Enquiry Officer dated 18-7-1988. (It may here be mentioned that no copy of the said defence statement submitted by the defence representative on 12-4-1988 has been filed by the Mana-

jnent.)

(j) Zcrox copy of the written arguments submitted on behalf of the the Management before the Enquiry Officer dated 8-1-1988. In this connection the Minute of Proceedings of the domestic enquiry of the last date i.e. 25-11-1987 shows that the Enquiry Officer had directed the defence representative to submit his written argument within 15 days after receipt of the written argument of the Presenting Officer. There is nothing in the minutes of the proeessdings of domestic tnquiry to show that any written arguments had been filed on behalf of ihc delinquent workman. No copy of such written ar- gument has also been filed before this Tribunal.

6. According to the delinquent workman the domestic enquiry was unfaircd and imporper and there was violation of principles of natu- ral justice. In the written statement it is alleged that during the course of domestic enquiry the workman Sri Sinha was refused by the Enquiry Officer the opportunity of getting the so-called letter of complaint authenticated by the Author. Tn the rejoinder to the written statement of the Management filed on behalf of the workman it is stated that the charge of refusal to accept the cash from the Cashier Sri A.K. Gupta was levelled against Sri Sinha on the basis of so-called complaint of Sri Gupta but yet despite the repeated demands from Sri Sinha the Management representative during the enquiry failed to produec Sri A. K. Gupta to authenticate his com- plaint . It is further stated in the written statement that the prosecution did not care to produce other material witnesses depriving the workman the opportunity to cross-examine them7325 3 4 1 2 The Minute of proceeding of domestic enquiry dated 25-11-1987 shows that on that date a demand has been made by the workman for production of Narayan Ram, Peon, Sri S. Mali and Sri A. K. Gupta Cashier as witnesses of the Manage- ment for cross-examination because according to the workman they were material witnesses for the case. It was submitted on behalf of the workman that for non examination of these wilnesses by the Management he has been deprived of his right to cross-examine them. The afore-mentioned minutes of domestic enquiry shows that the Management did not want the examination of such witnesses. In my view under such circumstances, the defence could not have compelled the Management for production of those witnesses from the Management side merely for cross examination. At best the non-examination of the material witnesses by the Manage- ment may lead to an adverse inference against them. There was nothing to prevent the workman to examine these witnesses from his side. Thus, it cannot be said that there was viola- tion of the principles of natural justice for non production and non examination of material witnesses by the managemen'

7. However, I notice from the minutes of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry dated 13-11-1987 and 25-11-1987 that the defence representative had wanted to examine Sri B, K. Jallan, Head Cashier, Muzaffarpur Branch and Sri M. M. Sing] acting head cashier, as defence witnesses, but the prayer was turned down by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that they were not connected with any of the charges. There is nolhing in these minutes of the domestic enquiry to show that any opportunity was given to the delinquent workman to explain as to in what way their evidence would be connected with the charges before disallowing the workman to examine them as witnesses. It is true that no specific grievance has been raised.by the workman either in his written statement or rejoinder for not being able to examine those witnesses in his defence at the time of domestic enquiry. But this objection has been taken in a general way and it is stated in the written statement that during the course of domestic enquiry the Enquiry Officer took unprincipled and unjustified stand by rejecting many relevant prayers of the defence representatives in violation of natural justice and fair play. The Minute of the proceeding before the Disciplinary Authority dated 22-2-1989 shows that these plea has been take by the workman before the said authority. It was also made clear before the said authority as to in what way the evidence of Sri M. M. Singh would have been relevant.

8. In the facts and circumstances I agree with the view of the deliquent workman that he had not been given propel opportunity to defend himself.

9. Further the copy of the Minutes of the proceeding of the domestic enquiry dated 13-11-1987 shows that a demand had been made on himself of the deliquent workman requiring the Management to file the preliminary investigation rcpor on which the charge sheet is based. The Enquiry Officer73:6 T HE G A Z E T TE OF TNDIA : D E C. 8, 2001 / A G R A H A Y A NA 17, 19?.3 | P A RI J I - S E C. 3 ( i i )l .1

• 4 1 2

after hearing both pnrlies icji.-i.ted the prayer of the defence holding the. view that the report sought for by the workman is irrelevant. A similar demand was again made on 25-11-I9K/. The Minute of the proceeding of the domestic enquiry of that date shows that a demand had heen made on behalf of the workman for production of the report of the wi ness Sri Arun Kumar, the then Uranch Manager upon which charge is said to have based. The Enquiry Officer rejected such demand on the similar ground that the report is irrelevant.

Id. In my view ihere v\as no justification for the Enquiry Officer to hold that the preliminary report leading to the charge sheet wns irrelevant. There is nothing in the minutes of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry to show that the Management had submitted any explanation for iwi (iling of the prclimjnaiy report. Had the Management Hied the initial report submitted by Sri Arun Kumar leading to the charge sheet. The workman eould have effectively cross- examined the witnesses and could have proved any contra- diction, addition or commission in his evidence in reference to his earlier statement. So in inv view on tlii; around al^o it seems that the delirigucnt workman was prejudiced during the domestic enquiry.

11. In view of my above reasons T am compelled to bold that the domestic enquiry was not fair "and the principles of natural jusi ice were violated. However the Management can adduce fresh/additional evidence before this Tribunal to prove the charges, Put up on 4-7-20U1 for evidence of the the Management if it is so desired.

S. K. M1SHRA, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIHUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 56|().'i In the mutter of dispute between

General Secretary, Allahabad Bank Staff Association, 40|2fi North Malaka Allahabad,

AND

Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank, Gonda Road Regional. Office Buhraich.

New Delhi, the 12lh November, 2001

AWARD

S.O. .— In puisuiu'ce of Section 17 of the Indu.siiiul

I. Central Government. Ministry of Labour 12012|3R3| 941R(Ft-2) dattd 24-5-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : —

"Whethci ,Vri Mohd. Sajjan was an employee of Alla- habad Hairk Buhraich as temporary peon-cum- Farash? If so whether the action of. the flank management in terminating; his services with effect from 1-10-93 was legal and justified? If not. what relief is Shri Saijan entitled to?" Disputes Act, 1947 (H of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centrnl GovvJinmcm Indusliial Tribunal K-inpur as shown in the nnnexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Rank and their workman, which WTS lel-eiwd by the Central Governnn-ni on 9-11-2001. I'No. r,-12012|3RBl(M-m(B-II)| C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy7327 the bank. It has been alleged that the reference made to this tubunal hy the Government of India .should be decided in favour of the bank and against the workman.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder in which he h,u icitcralcd the facts alleged in the statement of claim and has also admitted that he had taken a loan for Rs. 12000 ttoni the Buhralch Branch of the bank in the year 1993 but the same was utilised not for purchasing the generator set but to meet other family expenses. He has not denied tile fact that Bianch Manager was not competent to appoint any member of sub stall in the Bank.

2. In this case award was passed by this Tnbun;il on 7-K-9K where bv the reference w;is decided in favour of tin; workman and u diiectiun was given to tlic management of [lie hunk Ui reinstate him with back wages. That ease was decided against (he management after the application of management for adducing evidence was iejected and the ease wih decided wilhoiil any evidence of the manage- ni.nt. The management lilcd \viit petition No. 434si3 of VK hn'foic the lion'ble Allahabad High Court Allahabad l.'ank versus CCiIT and another against the aforesaid award and the writ petition was allowed and the aforesaid award w;.s set aside and the c.ise was lemanded to this tribunal for deciding the case afresh after (riving the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence and after Kiting them tin oppoilnnily of hearing. Tims Ihis case has again come up lv:for? iliis tribunal for decision according to law.

3. On behalf uf the workman statement of claim has been liled with the alienation that Mohd. Sajian who was in search of an employment appioached the Manager of Allahabad Bank Hahraich Branch and the manager of the Bahraich Branch of the Rank was pleased to engage him us tempoiary pcon-cum-rairash on 1-9-89. lie worked con- tinuously from 1-9-89 to 1-10-93 when his sci vices were abruptly terminated. It Ins been alleged that he was workman as defined under the Indusnial Disputes Act und was entitled to get protection of Section 25H of the In- duslrial Disputes Act as he had worked for more than 240 days. It has been alleged that no notice pay or retrench- ment compensation was paid to him in accordance with Ihe provisions of Section 251- of the I.D. Act, liencc his relifnchment from seivice was illeyal and he was entitled 1o be icirislaled in service with full back wages. It has been tilleged that after he was retrenched from service one Hhyamii and thereafter Sri Hariii'm were appointed as peons in the bank but no opportunity (if employment was £iven to the concerned workman hy the Bank. Thus the Bank committed breach of Section 2511 of the I.D. Act. It has also been alleged that the Government of India. Ministry of Finance vide its ciieular dated 16-R-90 had issued a direction that a workman who has worked for more than 240 davs In a year should be absorbed in the sci vice oi the Hank and the concerned workman is entitled to pet benefit of that circular also. Thus he has prayed that he should be absorbed in the service of the hank in ternr; of afores'i'd circul ir of the Government of India.

d The woikman examined himself as W.W. 1 and filed 6 documents marked Ext. W-l to W-6 in support of his case. The management examined Sri K. N. Sharma M.W. 1 and Sri U.S. fripathi as M.W. 2 and filed 28 documents maik- cd Ext. M.M.-l to M-28 in support of ils case. The con- tention of the authorised representative for the workman is that the concerned workman was an employee of Allaha- bad Bank Bahraich Branch ..s temporary peon-cum-l'irrash and was appointed on that post on 1-9-R0. The contention of Ihe bank is thai Mohd. Sajjan was never employed as pcon-ci ii-Farrish in the Bahraich Branch of the Bank. In these uieunistances there was heavy burden on the w,nrk- man to prove by cogenl evidence that he was employed as peon-cum-fauash in Bahraich Branch of Allahabad Bank on 1-9-89 and continued to work there till 1-10-93. The concerned workman has not filed any appointment letter to show thai he was ever appointed on the post of pooiv cum-farrash in Bahraich Blanch of Ihe Bank on 1-9-8'* Ife hud not filed any document to show that his services were terminated wilh effect from 1-10-93 by any ollieer of the Bank. He has not pioduced any document to show that he ever drew any sdiry of peon-cum-farrash from Bahraich Branch of the bank during the aforesaid period. The case of the concerned workman as pleaded in the statement of claim is that he vvas engaged appointed ns peon-cum-farrash in Bahiaich Branch of the Bank by the then branch Manager of the bank. It was clearly pleaded by the management in its written statement that bianch Manager was not empowered to make appointment on any post in sum-stuff cadre and appointment on such post could be made only by Regional Manager of the Rank. This facl has not been been denied by the workman in his re- joinder. The then branch Manager of Bahrnich Bianch of Allahabad Bank Sri U. S. Tripathi M.W. 2 stated on oath that he was branch Manager °f Bahraich Branch of the Bank from May, 1989 to July, 1991. He further stated that t'he post of peon comes in the cadre of sub-stuff" anj the branch Manager has no power to appoint a peon in the bank and such appointment are made only by Ihe Regional Manager or Chief Manager of the bank. He fur- ther stated that duiinp his tenure there was not any vacancy of pcon-cum-farrash in the bank and there were only three sanctioned post of sub staff on which Sri Dinesh Kumar, Sunder T_,a1 and Mahbuh Hasan were working, lie clearly stated that he nrvcr enc-med Sii Mohd. Sa.iiiin on the posl of peon-cum-farrush He further stilted that Mohd. Usmun the brother of Mohd. S.ijian had let out his Generator fo the Bank for power supnlv in th'¹ absence of electnVify and Mohd. Saiian worked ;is a operator on that pcnerat.ir set and he did nol work at all as a pcon-ciim-fnrrnsh in the Bank. Similarly Sri K. N. Sharma M.W. 1 stated on oath that he worked as Sr. Man.ipT in Regional Office- Bahrnich and find temporary chmge of the Mannper of Bahiaich Brunch of the Bank from November 19Q2 to lune 1993. He stated that there were only three post of peon in 111? Bunk and on those posts Sunder Lal Mahbnb Has'tn and Oincsh Kumar were wnrNine as permanent neons. ITc stated that there wns no vacancy of peon in that bank and Mobd Saiian never worked ns a neon in tho Bahraich Branch of the Bank. He stated thai Mohd. U'.man had hired his penQ rntor set to the Rank and Mohd. Saiian was only working as operator of that genrrnlor set in Ihe Bank. Although these witnesses were cross examined at length bv the au- thorise! representative for the workman bin nothing hns come In their cross examination which may discredit theit testimony. I am therefore, inclined to believe trHr testimony, The inleresied testimony of workman that hi? worked as a pcon-cum-farias-h in Bahiaich Branch in the Bank from 1-9-R9 io I-IO-'H is not sufficient to robiit the overwhelm- ing evidence on record nrM'irrH by the management fn support of its case. The management has fil^d the copy of application of the concerned workman for a loan of 4. The management of the hank has filed written Statement with the contention that the concerned vvoikmnn Mohd. Sajjnn was never cmploved as peon-cum-farrash in thi? Bnhraich Branch of the Allahabad Bank. Tt has been alleged that branch manag.r has no power to appoint a member of sub staff in the hank as the members of sub staff are appointed bv Regional Manager of the bank after following the prescribed procedure for recruitment. It has been alleged thai if there is anv vacancy 1he names of can- didate aie called from the employment exchange and after n selection is made from amongst the candidates, the vacant posts- aic filled up accordingly. It has been alleged that the- ic'ationsb'p i'f master and ^ivant never existed between the bank and Mohd. S'liian hence he was not entitled to get any relier against tfie bank it has been nllcgcd Hint the bank had hired a penernfor from n private person to opc- raff dining the shut down period for supply of power and said Si I S'lii'Mt was encnged by the owner of generator fo operate his penerator at Bahraich branch of the bank. The banl had no concern with Sri Sajian and no salary or wages were e vr paid, to him. He never signed the attendance register as nn employee of the bank It has been alleged Ibat ,h" 'v:,s- never required to perform anv of the duties of rron-cum-farrash. As Sri Sniian was not in emri- lovre of thr bank \io anpointrfiem letW was; issued in his favour a"d thrrr was nn question of termimtion of bis service pf fnv rieiint of lime. It his been denied Hint Han Ram and Slunmu wpre ever appointed as peon in the bank. A* |Tv: v oikm'-T V:K not the emnloyof of the bank he Was not enii'led to f"*1 protection of epe-tinn ^Sp nr I'vln^trhl Disputes Act, It has been alleged that in the year (991 Mohd. Sii'ian purchased a ci-ncri'tor set after taking n loan of Rs. 12000 from the hank under Nehru Rojgar Yojna ar.d afier mirchasinp the ''"nerator he became self employed and was no longer unemployed and there was no question nf absorbinQ him in the service of [he bank. It has been allet'fd thai Mohd. Saijan has onlv made an attempt throiicTi lh" lit!"'linn to i>et ]y^k door rntrv in the wvicer or the bank without belnp selected or appointed on any po^t in

3fi3O GI|2001—18.

7328 THE GAZETTE (,'1< JND1A : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs, 1200(1 for purchasing tile generator which is Ext, M3 on. recoid. This application has been signed by Mohd. Sajjan and Sajjan admitted that he had applied for a loan of Rs. 12000 to the bank in the year 1993. At first page of this application dated 17-4-93 the concerned workman lias written that he wns ;in educated unemployed person. Ilis this admission is sufficient to indicate that on 17-4-93 he was not employed any where and he wanted to purchase generator for engaging himself in letting out the generator and running the same for self employment. His application for loan was supported by report of on officer of the Municipal Board Bahraich which is ext. M.17 on the record. In that report dated 26-10-92 it is clearly mentioned that the applicant Mohd. Sajjan was operating a generator in the Bank and he wanted to take loan for purchasing a generator. The aforesaid report of the Municipal Board also supports the case of the management that Mohd. Sajjan was operating a generator set in the Bahraich Branch of the Bank. At page 4 of the application dated 17-4-93 in column No. 17 it is also mentioned that the concerned workman had experience of operating the generator and other membeis of his family also do the same work, In column No. 18 it is also mentioned that other members of his family also carrying the business of letting out generator. The aforesaid admission made by the concerned workman in his own application go to show that Mohd. Sa|jan was working as operator of generator set in the Bahraich Branch of the Hank. I am therefore, not prepared to believe the testimony of Mohd. Sah'un that he never worked

8. Some photo copies of the vouchers have been filed by the workman which are Ext. W 4|l to W. 4]7 which indicate that for doing some work Mohd. Sajjan was paid petty amounts of Rs. 15, Rs. 7 or Rs, 10, on different dates casually, This supports the contention of the management that when Mohd. Sajjan was present in the bank as operator of the Generator some work of casual labour was taken from him by the employees and officers of the bank for which pettv amounts were paid to him as labour charges. Such working done by the concerned workman in the Bank could not eivc him status of an employee of the Bank.

9. The authorised representative for the workman as drown my attention towards the application of Mohd. Sajjan dated 3-4-93 which U.TS forwarded by the then branch Manager to the Assistant General Manager Lucknow of Allahabad Bank for giving him regular employment in the bank. Sri K. N. Sharma M.W 1 the then branch manager of Bahraich Branch of the Bank stated that he had only forwarded that application and all the entries in the application as will as In the certificate were filled when the same was produced before him. The entries made in the certificate that Sri R.A. Mehrotrn and Sri K. K, Tandon branch Manager had en- gaged him in the bank apDears to be false and bass less because they had worked in the bank before appointment of Sri U. S Tripathi as branch Manager of the bank in May 1989. The case of the concerned workman is that he was appointed in that branch on 1-9-89. This application and the certificate also indicate that he was nev^r paid salary of the post of peon-ciim-farrash and he never made entries in the attendance register of the employees of the Bank. This shows that Mohd. Saiian took advantage of his presence as generator operator and wanted to get bnck door entrv in the service of the hnnk bv mentioning faKr t.icts in his application which was forwarded by the then branch Manaoer to the higher authorities. His application Ext. W.I also shows that no salarv was ever nnid to h;m for the post of messeneer-cum-farni'.h in the Bnhraich Branch of the Bank and wns never poid sn'arv of thnt posl and no appoint- ment letter was ever issued in his favour by the competent authority.

10. Tn view of above evidence on record discussed above, 1 nm inclined to believe the ense of the management that >hp concerned workman WHS never appointed as peon-cum- farrnsh and his icrvices were never terminated by the competent authority on 1-10-1993,

11. In a similar case of the Manager Stale Bank of Indore Kanpur versus Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal (Central) Kanpur and others 1990 (60) FLR 672 the Hon'blc High Court of Allahabad has held as under ;—• In the absence of any appointment order there cannot be uny termination nor it can be alleged that ter- mination i" bad. Para 495 of the Shastri Award clearly indicate the term in which the appointment is to be made that is by a written order and when appointment has not been made according to law a right cannot be claimed. Where a person has no right to a post or to a particular status but if the authority acts beyond its competence gives that person a status which it was not entitled to give he will not in law be deemed to have been validity appointed to the post or given the parti- cular status.

12. A similar question was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Himanshu Kumar Vldyarthi versus State of Bihar 1997 Lab. IC 2075 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : —

Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are tetmporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement fium service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of ret- renchment therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learn- ed counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the Hijjh Court, the petitioners did not contend that it IN a case of retrenchment but ter- mination of their services is arbitrary. Since the? are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement h not arbitrary.

13. The law laid down in the cases cited above fully applies to the facts of the present case. 1, therefore, hold that the concerned workman who was never appointed on the post of peon-cuni-farrash by the competent authority and did not get any salary of that post from 1-9-89 to 1-10-93 and did not mark any attendance in the attendance register of the bank could not get status of an employee of the bank and was, therefore, not entitled to get protection of the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, As he was not the employee of the bank there was no ques- tion of terminatfon of his service,

14. I, therefore, hold that the concerned workman was never peon-ciim-farrash in 'he Bahraich branch of Allaha- bad Bank and his services were never terminated by the competent authority of the bank and the concerned work- man is not entitled to get any relief in pursuance of refe- rcnece made to this tribunal,

15. Reference is answered accordingly against the con- cerned workman.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer7329 New Delhi, the 12th November, 2001 S.O. 3318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 \>i 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Ihc management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on !>-11-2001.

[No. L-12012|389|96-IR(B-ID]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 26/93

In the mutter of dispute :

BETWEEN

The Assistant General Secretary, U P Bank of Baroda Employees Union, C/o Bank of Baroda, 90|165Dua Market, Tftikharabad, Chamra Mandi, Kanpur-208001.

AND

The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gumti No. 5, Kanpur.

AWARD

1- Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification No. L-12O12/389/96-lR(B-ri) dated 24-02-9K has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—

'"Whether [he action of the management of Bank of Baroda in obtaining initials (short-signatures) of Shri S. C. Mishra, Special Assistant on cash cheque/vouchers exceeding Rs. 20,000 and transfer and clearing ex- ceeding Rs. 50,000 is proper and justified ? If not to what relief the said workman is entitled ?" 2. On 23-10-2001 when the case was taken up for hearing and recording evidence on behnlf of the management, the au- thorised representative of the Union raising the dispute on be- half of the concerned workman made an endorsement on the statement of claim to the effect that the present claim is not pressed. In view of his endorsement made on the claim, the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the claim of the concerned workman is liable to be dismissed as not pressed and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the reference order.

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

R, P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th November, 7001 S.O. 3319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Ihc Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of I.IC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2001.

[No. L-l7012/l/88-IR(B-tll| C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN". Ill MAIN, 111 CROSS, TT PHASE, TUMKURROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 24th October, 2001

PRESENT:

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

C.R. No. 32/89

I PARTY

Shri K. Raghuchandra, C/o Narayanji, Janata Colony, Kumbashi, Kumdapura Taluk, Udupi Distt. Dakkshina Kannada, (Advocate—K. Rama Bhat)

If PARTY

The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of Indi;i, Udupi-576107. (Advocate—M. Chandrasekharan)

AWARD

1 The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Acl, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-17012 1/88-D. KB) dated 19th April, 1989 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Udupi Division in dismissing Shri K. Raghuchandra, Record Clerk w.c.f. 9-10-1984 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled '.'" 2. The First parly was working with the Second Partv. Charge sheet was issued against the first party alleging that he has committed misconduct. Domestic Enquiry was held and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer first party was dismissed from service and therefore this industrial dispute ij raised.

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

4. The case of (he first parly is that he joined the services of the Second Parly as Subordinate staff on 12-J 0-1973. He was working honestly and sincerely. He was promoted during the year 1980 as Record Clerk. There are no complaints against him till 1983.

5. Ii is the further case of the first partv that the Divisional Manner has issued a charge sheet dated 1^-12-1983 alleging that the firsl party unauthoriscdly collected a sum of Rs, 255.20, the quarterly premium of a customer on June. 1983 in cash but he did not. deposit the said amount with Ihe Corporation on the same day and he misappropriated the said amount. The name of the customer is Karunukara Mogaveera.

7330 T HE G A Z E T TE OF 1NDTA : D E C. 6, 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 17, 1 0 23 [ P A RT I F —S E C. i f i iM

0. li is I lie further ease of the hrst party (hat the allegation is Iliai ilie first p;ul> with a malalide intention deposited witli Corporation a cheque No. 590598 lor Rs. 255.20 drawn on SB AeeoimL l-io. 1 II.-A: willi Canara Bank, Kundupurj towards the piennuni due 28-5-I9H3 under Policy No. 61-+22310, but the cheque vvas dishonoured by the Bank for the reasons lhat In.s signature deferred. It is also allseed th.it the first party with nn ultcr.oi" motive collected the cheque dis- honoured advise issued by IJIIS department of bianch office, Kundapuia dated 10-6-1983 along with Ihe aforesaid cheque returned by Hie Bank instead of sending the same to the party under eel tificale of posting as per Rules, but the allegations arc not correct.

7. It is ihe furlhei ease of the first parly that the above said chin .yes are not correct and he has gi/en an explanation. In the explanation he lias slated that he lias not commuted any misconduct.

X, It is iunher ease of tile first parly thai Mr. Kaiunakaia Mogavcera was a fiiend to first party workman and he wanted to pay the quarterly premium due during Mi.y, 1983 amuontmg to Rs, 255.2U on his policy No, hi422310 and informed him that he had only Rs. 200 and requested the first party woik- man to pay the balance, The first party workman did not have the balance amount with him and he agreed LO give a cheque for Rs. 255.20 on the condition that Shri Karunakara Mo.ua- vecra would remit the balance amount to SB Account of Ihe first party on the very next day. Mr, Karunakara Mogaveeia has tailed to remit the amount.

9. It ii the further case of the first party that he ha*, not committed any misconduct.

10. Regarding enquiry so mapy allegations arc made h\ the first party contending lhat the charges were not read ovei lo the first party and tull opportunity was not given to him and the enqtiiiy is not correct. The first party for these reasons has prayed lo pass award in his favour.

11. The ease of the Second party in brief is as follows :

12., It is true th.it the first party was working with the second party. He committed misconduct and charge sheet was issued. Then¹ was 4 charges against him as stated in paia 2 of (he Counter.

13. It is the furlhci ca-.e of the second party that an enquiry was held and the same is correct.

14. RegaidiHg enquiry the case of the Second party is that the enquiry is fail and proper and lull opportunity was given to (he lust party and nil the allegations made by the first parly are not collect. The icpoit of the enquiry officer w"s correct and on the basis of the said report the first party was dismissed and the action of the management is coirect. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

15. It is seen from Ihe records thai the management examined witnesses and woikman also jrave evidence. This Tribunal by n,s ordei dated 13th April, 1 "92 held lhat the DH is not fail and proper. Thereafter the case was posted giving opportunity lo the management to prove Ihe misconduct 16. It is seen from the records that (he manauemuit has not examined the w.tnesscs lo prove the misconduct after Ihe iinding on preliminary issue and this tribunal on 19-7-1 lJ9y posted the case for Award and on 20th July, 1999 Aw.ud was passed in favour of the fiist party.

17. It is seen fiom Ihe records that in WP No. 3641371999, the High Court of Karnataka by its order dated 17th Novii'iher |94y, remanded the matter lo enable the manage- ment to lead evidence. After the remand, parlies appeared. As pei the direction of High ( ourt of Karnatak.!, Management, after remand examined three witnesses. Workman ulso tot examined himself.

IS- After the close of th; evidence I have heard bolh sides. 1 have penned all the records and the citations given by Ihe management.

19. In order to piove the misconduct independently because the Df was set aside, management examined MW i, 2 A: 3.

olfice when the cheque is dishonored. This witness has m-jde enquiry with the first party and the /irst party a.meed and said that he had received the amount Me has also i-lated about enquiry which was held against the first p.uly. 21. MW2, Mi. S. N. Navada has catcyineally siaicd in his evidence lhat he does not remember as lo what happened about this case on 13-6-83. He has also slated that he does noi know anything about the cheque incideni. He has stated thai the first party was having access lo 'he cheques cominM lo the department.

22. In my opinion this evidence of MW2 will not held Ihe management lo piove any misconduct against the first party. On the other hand this evidence is helpful lo the lirsi parly.

23. MW3 is K. Vasanlha. Me has staled thai he has not concern vvuh Ihe ledgers and therefore, he does not know anything, lie has funher stated that the lust party has received cash from the policy holder Md has given personal cheque to the office and that cheque was bounced Hrst party was not entitled to icceivc cheques ior the premium. l!is evidence will also not help the management to prove the misconduct. He Said that in his presence no documents were prcpaied and signed then in respeci of the fii.sl paity. The evidence of MW2 and MW3 is not sullicient to piove any charges against the fiisl party.

24.. MWI has slated in his cross examination that except the admission ol ihc lirst party and complaint of Shri Karunakara, they do not have any other document to sa> that Rs. 255.20 was paid to first party. It is also said that the complaint was iilcd. MWI says in his cross examination lhat it is true that there is some correction about the dare in the complaint and the same is not initiated by Kaiunakaia. He has said in his cross examination that he does not know U Kaiunakaia and lust party were friends and Kai unakara has taken loan by way of cheque. He has also said in his cross examination that there is no written admission of Ihe first party saying that he received cash and issued cheque for Rs. 255.20 to the policy holder. A suggestion was put to him and he says in his cross examination that afier enquiry Karunakara gave in writing lhat he has not pfiid the premium to ihc first parly and not earlier as suggested. All this would go lo show that even the evidence of MWI will not help anything to prove that the lirst party has committed misconduct. Only because thtrc is some admission by the lirst parly, we cannot come to the conclusion lhat he h.is- committed mis- conduct as alleged against him.

25. It is an admitted fact that when the domestic enquiry is held as not fair and proper the management lias to prove independently charges levelled against the iusl party by adducing prima facie evidence.

26. But in the instant case the evidence ci MWI to MVv'3 is not sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the firs; party. There is no explanation on behalf of the ninnagemcnt as to why Karunakara is not examined. The evidence oi Karunakara is very material lo prove '-riaiyes against the first party. Non examination of Karunakara is leally fatal lo the management.

27 We are having the evidence of WW1. He has narrnted the entire story o1 Karunakara approaching him and request- ing him to give loan for paying his premium and issue of cheque.

28, VVW1 considering all this, I am of the opinion that the charges are nol proved at all. MWI has stated in his cross examination thai it is true that Kaumakara has not written uny complaints' in his presence. With this if is clear that tin- management has failed to prove charges against Ilie first party.

2y. The evidence of WW1 seems to be miluinl. He admit, in his cross examination that he has civen 'cheque ol Ks, 255.20 on his account of I EC for paying premium and he .says lhat he' gave the cheque Without knowing anything about ihc rules. This appears to be quite natural." 7311 .

31. The learned counsel for the management has relied AIR 2000 SC JJ29. 1 huvc read the above decision carefully. The facts of the case on hand axo quite different from the facts of the above decision. I have given my best considera- tion to the evidence and material before me and I am of the opinion that the charges are not proved by the manage- ment and the action of the management in dismiss'iig the li:-'. party is not correct and the same has lo bo ••:i as;d.\ Accordingly I proceed to pass the following on.k'i.

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed and the order of dismissal is set aside and the Second Party is directed lo reinstate the tirs>t party from the date of his dismissal with continuity ot service and all othe>r benefits, In the given circumsianccs bUckwages are not allowed.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected at.d sijzncd

by me on 24th October. 2001.)

V. N. KULKARN1. Presiding Officer

24-10-2001

i New Delhi, the 9th October, 2001

S.O. 3320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispuic Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Ajmer as shown in the annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-10-2001.

[No. L-12012|I72i95-IR(B4T>] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

7332 T HE G A Z E T TE OF TNDTA : D E C. 8, 2 0 0 1/ A G R A H A Y A NA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C, 3(ii)l 7333 7334 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : D E C. 8, 2 0 0 1 / A G R A H A Y A NA 17, 1923 LPAJU I I — S E C. j ( i i )l

79A5 '"even tnose WHO were, engaged a& daily wage| casual labour, who could not complete 240 days but were required to be retrenched, the procedure prescribed for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act should be- followed a list of them in the order of seni- ority should be maintained. Last corfle ftrst go participle should be followed. A list of them in the order of seniority should be maintained as 3Ad when vacancies arise or need for work arises thev should be called for work immediacy without asking them to get their i ames sponsored by the Employ- ment Exchange."

". ... .So fair as tbc work ebasgpd employees and caisual labour are concerned, the effort must be to. regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if airay, prescribed for the post and subject also tQ availability of work. If a casual labour is continued for a fairly long spell say t

3630 GI/2001—197336 THE GAZETTE Or INDIA : DEC. 8/ 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 192Z [FART H - S t c. 3(ji)J . - • • • • ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST- RIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LAiJOUE. COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 20th September, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 392(2001

(Tamil Nadu State Indu trial Tribunal I.D. No. 54 [95)

(In the matter of the. dispute, for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) avd G'.:b-".ecl:on 2(A) of Secnon !() of Ihn Industrial Disputes A'.-t, 19.17 (14 of 1947), between the Worl:nr_

B12TWE2N

The General Secretary, Bank of Baroda Employees Union, Madras.

; I PartylClaimant.

AND

The Drpitty Manager, '

Dink of .Bargda, Madras. : II Party[Itfanagemcnt.

APPEARANCE : .

For the Claimant : M|s. Row nnd Reddy, Advocate?. For thr Management : M|s. K. S. V. Prssad tind S.

G-.masec!an, Advocates

Th'* Govt, of India, Ministry of Lrhour in extreme, of powers conferred bv clni'^ fd) of sub-section (1) ;ind Snb- sfction 2(A1 of Stcfion 10 of Tndnstri.il TVspnie Ac'. 1Q47 (14 oF 19471, h"ve rc^i'fd th? cor^er^M TTrlnptHnl D^putr; for ndiiidication vide Order No. L-12012|45|95-IR(B-N) dated 25-8-1995.

Thfs reference Iris been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Stnte Industrial Tribunal, where it w.is taken on file aa T.D. No 54|95. When the matter was pending c"quirv in th;U Tribnral., th? Govt of India, Miniitry of T nhn-n- was nlfrs- rd to order transfer r>f this case frajn thnt Trihnml to 1liis Tribviml for "dindicr.tion. On receipt v^f records fro™ (hat Tibunnl. (he case h;;"; b"Cn fiken on file as T,D. Nn 3°2I'>O'J] and notices were sent tti the counsel on record on cither n;'1f, informing; them nhont the transfer of this r.as^¹ to this Tribunnl. with a d'rer'i'On to anrffir before this Trib'."i-''I on 20-2-2001 On n"p"ipt of notice fr~rn this Tribunal, the connt-el on ci'her side prcs^rit with th 'ir rcsprctiva parties and pr.T=eci!f?c1 this c">se further,

AWARD ' ' .

Tliif Industrial 'Disn"''~ rrf^ncd 'to in the' nbov? order nf .fjffrcnce, hv the, C[-ntml ,f!overr.men( for adjudication by this

Tribunal - is as follows :

"Whrthrr the -irtJpn of the Mnnn^cment vf Bank of New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001

^hrnff-ciim-Clri-i-' fv.^m server W.rf. ^-H-IOR¹) is' ti"<;nl find jir'l'fifriv Tf not, what relief is the raid workman entiled t-n?"

S,O. 33.^ 1.—-In pursuance of Section 17 of th- Ir.dLiitrial

?.. ri"h- nvcrm-nts in the CJnr'm Statement of thv I P;'rfvl

Chirniint H"-bri"Py ps follows :^ .

• The r j r i e ni .a^crotri", B^vV of R.^roda Pmn'oves U n ^n Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Contral Gove/nment hertbv. publish":! the aw.-rd of thf Ccnir.i' GnvinmenL In- dustrial Tribunal Chennai ai shown in the annexnrc in the Industrial Dispute between th:.- employers in relation to thf: management of Ba^k of Bprnda and their workman, tuhirh "™ rcrrivp,} hir t)ie Qen,tral Government on 13^11-2001.

. ['No. LrUO12|45|95-rR/TJ-ll1] • C. C^'GADHARAN, 'Under Secy.

7337' •

lesser punishment.' The acttonof the Rcsporideht|ManBge- ment in imposing punishment of dismissal In the case of Sri P. Murugesan alone is highly' arbitrary and discriminate!y. Hence, it is prayed that his Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the dismissal order duted 4-11-89 and direct Ihe Respondent|Bank to leinstato the concerned workman Sri P. Murugesan wi!h full back wages and continuity of sorvictt.

3, The averments in the Counter Statement of the IT PartyJ

Bank ol Baroda Management are brielly as follows :—

[ • • h o j t r pe n r . 'j r tt r r:G " r j ; r o p T i n t : cn a nd KH a j o i nt c u s t c l i i m, ,

fiOk THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : BBC. ". 20at/ AORAHAaSANA 17, 1923 [PART U-^tec. 9"

11 • i ——,—-•

d a y i x. "s Oh, 19-7-Sft and fit that tirflfr the notice pf the concornod workman. It is alleged on the side of the Management that the concerned workman, the then Chief Cashier of the branch Mr. P. Murujteuan has admitted his responsibility for shortage in the cash department and has adjusted the amount on the same day and he haa also given a letter admitting that he has utilised the money on various dates since October. 1987. The xerox copy of the letter given by the concerned workman Sri P. .Muru&ssan on 20-7'SS to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Karadivavi has been filed along with the enquiry report (Xerox copy) as page No. 80. In that, th" concerned workman has stated as follows :-*-

"For the time 6f verification of cash an Bmount of Rs. 6760 under the following denominations was found shortage (not in joint reserve).

I admit that I have taken the amount from various denominations, since October, 1987 onwards and also occasipnaly adjusting the same, 1 completely own the responsibility for the cash shortage and also adjust the Same today.

Sji P Mdnigesan and he made good the shortage Mr. V. WfoWesVflr, the then Manager, OoorioOr branch. Was "M>- ^ u Sl ft&fc Effqufry office?. Areplffr deJSttrTnrtntil en- ottav 'iWfe < the delinquent employ* to defend him- s"lf. The Enquiry Officer in his report held that all the charges levelled against the concerned workman Sri P, Murugc- san w'ere true dtfd prdvid. The Disciplinary Authority accented the ffnifines of the Enquiry Officer, held that the concerned workman Sri P. Murugesun guilty of all the charges by his letter dated 21-8-89 indicating there in the nature proposed punishment. A personal rearing was also given on I6-H)-S9. On that day the concerned workman stated that he did not take the money and submitted a letter)written arguments. After careful consideration of all aspects, the Disciplinary Au- thority'by Nis o¥d?r dated 4-11-89 imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice. The Order was s6rv£d on the cdnctrned workman Sri p. Munigesan on 17-11-89. The concerned w6rkrriiin preferred an appeal through his letter dated l*>Jf>89. t he Appellate Authority gave him a hear- ing oh tt-l-9() arid after edreful consideration of all the matters 'dflhiiSse'd the appeal upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner Union had raised an WdtiitHal dispute before the Assistant Labour Commission- er (Central) Madras, faming the conciliation proceedings on V8-91, the Petitioner requested the Assistant Labour Cdrffmissionir (Central) to close the matter as they were not interested in pursuing it. Much later, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) by his letter dated 16-9-93 advised the Respondent regarding conciliation proceedings on 29-9-93. The Respondent filed a reply dated 20-10-93. Sub&qirtntly, ttte Minislry of Labour Government of India had Jnado this reference fOr adjudication by this TribunaJ, Trie -delijiquertt was provided with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer arid only thereafter, the hearing for pro- posed rAJhishmtnt was given by the Disciplinary Authority. His letter of confession was not obtained by coercion- The shortage due to misappropriation was established during the domestic enquiry. The delinquent is not held to be guilty merely by a reason of his having mSde £ood the shortage amount. The delinquent's financial position or caste hai nothing to do with the delinquency or the proportion of the punishment given. The punishment given is appropriate for tho ''dellnqilencylcrime committed. For lack of confidence on the concerned workman, he cannot bo reinstated. In case, this HoriTsle Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the en- quiry was vitiated for one reason or the other, the Respon- dent rriay be permitted to prove the guilt of the concerned workman before this Tribunal. Hence, it is prayed that an award may be passed dismissing this dispute,

4. When the matter was pending dispute on the file of

Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal ns I.D. No. 54195 documents on the side of the Petitioner were marked as Exhibits W1 to W15. Subsequently under the orders of the Contt-al Government Ministry of Labour this industrial dispute has been transferred from tho file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On administrative grounds after the case has been taken up for enquiry, here in this Tribunal docu- ments on the side.of the TI Partv[Management were marked by consent as F.x. Ml to M4. After the arguments have been advanced bv the leatned counsel for the IT Party|Manage- meht arid no argument has been advanced by the learned counfel for xhe I 'Party/Clamant, the matter has been posted for ofda-s bn 20-9-2Ml this day.

5. The "point far My Consideration is :—

•"Wnether the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda, Madras in dismissing Shri "P. Mnrttgqsan, Shroff-eirm-Clerk from service" w.e.f. 4-11-89 is legal and justing? If not, what relief is the said work- man entitled to?"'

Point :

Ex. Wl is the xerox copy of the letter dated 20-7-88 from Sri V. V. Venkataramani, Manager (Inspection) to the Deputy General Manager, regarding cash -shortage, wherein he has stated about the Chief Cashier, Mr. P. Murugeson admitting his responsibility for the shortage in the cash depanment and adjusted the same on the same date and aouut his submitting a letter of admission on the same day. Ex. MI is tho xerox copy of the enquiry report with deposition and exhibits. Two witnesses on the side Of the Management were examned, In the enqriiry, the Manager, who had inspected the Karadivavi branch on 20-7-1988 has deposed as AtWl about his inspection and the detection of the shortage of oasn to the tune of Rs. 6760. In bis evidence, he has stated trmt and the Cashier P. Murtigesan was asked the reason for shortage,. thou,gh he hesfstated initially, informed MWl that he has utilised the money on various occasions since October, 1987. For his confession, the concerned workman gave a statement also and collected the same and sent it to ths higher authorities and on that evening, Mr. P. Murugcsan told him that he has adjusted the amount. He was cross examined by the defence representative on behalf of the charge sheeted em- ployee Mr. P. Murugejan in the domestic enquiry. In the cross examination also MWl has deposed that the concerned workman Sri P. MUrugesau gave the confession in writing as per his request. It was not suggested to MWl during cross exnrnlnutian by the defence representative in the domestic enquiry that the said confession statement wa3 obtained by him from the concerned workman Sri P. Mutujresan under threat and coercion and the said statement was not given by him voluntarily. Only in the Claim Statement, the Petitioner Union has stated that the alleged confession letter was obtained by coercion. It is further alleged in the Claim Statement that what P. Murugesan admitted was only shoftage and not mis- appioprintion and as a joint custodian, he took up the responsibility to make good the amount. He has not been put to as a suggestion to MWl when he was cross examined by the defence representative on behalf of the charge sheeted employee, the concerned workman Sri'P. Murugesan. Further, to establish his stand, TIO one has been examined as a witness including himself in the domestic enquiry to prove that the concerned letter dated 20-7-88 given by the concerned work- man Sri P. Murugesnn was obtained by the Manager (Inspection) MWl under threat and coercion. The perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings under Ex. Ml and W3 to W5, clearly show that the delinquent employee, the concerned workman Sri'P. Murngesan was given sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence effectively in the domestic enquiry ngainst the charges levelled against him and he was ably assisted by the 'defence representative in the domestic enquiry and both the witnesses tin ~ the side of the management as MWl and MW2 have been cross examined in detail and it is seen nothing worth of credit has been elicited in the cross examination of thcTmanagement witness by the defence re- presentative to discredit their evidence in chief.

It is not disputed that the concerned workman Sri P. Murugedan Was working as Head Cashier categroy "C" of the RespOfidentjBank branch of Karadivavi, since the open- ing of the branch from 17-8-87. It is.also not disputed on 20-7-1988 the Manager (Inspection) of Zonal Inspection Centre, Madras of the Rtjponderit|Bank inspected the Karadlvavi branch of the bank and verified the -opijnjnjt cash balance of the day I.e. the closing Cfcsbfcaiance of• tho-prevtofts

6. Even at the otrtset, it Is available on record as materials facts to cC"ne to the conclusion that-'the delinquent employee, the concerned workman.;Sri -P. Murugttan bttd admitted his guilt fl8hbbotu the%lBMtaB#t)f cft"h to the tun© o( R". 6,750. Howcvtr, wJth7339 with major punisHnwnt." In a case reported "8 1996 LAB IC 1056 Municipal Committee, Bhadurgqrii ¥fc t&rishiian Beharl, it is held that "in a case of involving corruption, there cannot be any other-punishment that dismissal. Any'sympathy shown in such cases Is totally uncalled tor and opposed to publ;c interest. The amount misappropriated may be^ small or large, it is an act of misappropriation is- relevant."

9. It is contended by the Petitioner Union that the concerned workman has put fat an unblemished record of five years of service and the Branch Manager himself has vouched for his good conduct and work and hence, the Tribunal is prayed tor h's interference under section 11A of th* Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as a punishment ts shockingly dispro- portionate to the gravity of the misconduct, There is no evidence to show that the Branch Manager himself has vouched for his good conduct and work, On the other hand, it is held in a case reported as 1980 1 LLJ 425 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras that "the length of service of the workman is not relevant in the imposition of punishment for the proved misconduct. If a worker has put a longer service, it cannot be taken to be licence to commit misconduct. Leniency in tho matter of punishment can only depend on the nature of misconduct and not on the question whether tho workman is married or not, whether he has put in a particular period of service. Applying this decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to this case, it is seen that the alleged un- blemished record of five years service of the concerned work- man will not of any use to consider his prnyer for thisTribunal to interfere with the imposed punishment under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

a view to give P. Murugjssan a naaionable opportunity the Respondent/Bank Management have conducted an enquiry In rc"pect of the change .Sheet dated 23-W-N8 is*ucti tp tlie delinquent employee Sn P. Mumeesan. A jierox copy of the said charge sheet dated 25-10-88 has been marked as Ex. Ml In the domestic enquiry. It fowns- pan ot fax. Ml enquiry report. From the perusal of the exhibits marked on either side in respect of enquiry proceedings and enquiry report Ex. W3 to W7 and Ml, it is-seen that there was no illegality in the conduct of the domestic enquiry that can vitiate the entire domestic enquiry proceedings. On the other hand, it is evident trom these documents that the II Patty/Management jias conducted the domestic enquiry in a iair and proper manner giving enough opportunity to the delinquent employee Sri P. Murugesan to put forth his defence effectively and there was no violation of any prin^pjes of natural justice. From the available records as enquiry proceedings and enquiry report, it is seen that after assessing the entire evidence let in before him the Enquiry Officer has given a finding under Ex. W7 that the charges lcvelkd against the delinquent em- ployee Sri P. Murugesan has been proved, It is also seen trom those records that the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion on the basis of the sufficient legal evidence placed before him both oral and documentary to come to a proper conclusion that the delinquent employee is guihy of the charges levelled against him. Hence, it cannot be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and he was biased in giving his findings and he has not followed the principles of natural justice. From the available facts and records, it is seen that delinquent employee, the concerned workman Sri P. Murugesan was caught red handed with Shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 6760 at 10.00 am on 20-7-88 by the Manager (Inspection) who verified the cash of the Bank branch at Karadivavi. Further, there is evidence to show that the delinquent himself gave a letter on the same day to the Branch Manager of the Bank confessing him guilt. In addition to that, he also made good th? deficiency on the same evening and had informed the same to the Manager (Inspection) on the sume day, which he has mentioned in his letter to the superior official under Ex. Wl. In a case reported as AIR 1969 SC 266 Central Bank of India Ltd, Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "in the conduct of the domestic enquiry against the workman, if the workman admits his guilt to insist upon the Management let in evidence about the allegations, will in our opinion, only be an empty formality". It was held in that case "that there has been no violation of the rules of natural justice".

10. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a case reported as 1991 LAB IC 244, Airlanka Ltd. Madras Vs. George William Nathan that "where the employer looses confidence on employees who is discharging an office of trust and confidence there is no justification for directing his re- instatement." Here, in this case the concerned workman Sri P. Murugesan has- committed th* pravp misconduct of misappropriation of bank funds to the tune of Rs. 6760 and the charge levelled against him for the misconduct has been proved in the domestic enquiry as per the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Rci ponderrt/MBnagement cannot repose confidence in him and for this reason of lack of confidence the delinqu?nt cannot be apd should not be reinstated in service. This stand taken by the XI Party/Management in this case is in par with the decision taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the above decided case. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the action of the Management of Bnnk of Baroda, Madras in dismissing Sri P. Murugesan, Shroff-cum-Clerk from service w.e.f, 04-11-1989 is li"Ral and justified, Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

] 1. In fhe result, an Award is passed holding that the action "">f the management of Bank of Baroda, Madras in dis- missing Sri P, Murugesan Shroff-cum-Clerk from service w.e f 04-11-1989 is legal and justified. Hence, the demand for the relief made by Petitioner Union in this case cannot be granted, No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed nnd typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in tho open court on this day the 20th September, 2001.)

7. It is ae"n from the documents filed en either side as exhibits that at every stage of the enquiiy, the delinquent employee, the concerned workman herein was given sufficient opportunity to put forth his representation first bjfore the Disciplinary Authority and next before the Appellate Authority. After considering properly the representation made by the delinquent employee through his defence representative, both the Difc plinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have come to the proper conclusion that aHer implying their mind and had issu-d necessary orders under Ex. W8 and W10 respectively. The reference made on behalf of the Peti- tioner through Ex. Wl 1 to W15 in respect of another employed of the bank Mr. Manoharan and P. Rcjagopalan, another employe of the bank have not been proved by the Petitioner Union to accept the same to say that they have some bearing; over the present case.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For the I Party/Claimant :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 20 07-8S Xsrox-cc^v of the Jettor from Manaser flhsnection) to the I?epu£y General Mawgqr re- garding cash shortage.

W2 25-10^88 Xerox -copy of the fetter from the Regional Manager,and TJla^minary.Authority to tho Petitioner.

,W3 .20401469 jJCtnwcapy-flf (he enquiry proceeding*.

8. It is the contention of tho Petitioner Union that the punishment Is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and in many other instances where the amount is more, tfce Respondent/Bank has taken a lenient view and has imposed losser punishment in the case of Cashiers like S/Sri Manoharan, Rajagopalas and Mohanaraj and the action of imposing punishment of dismissal in the case of P, Muru- gesan, the concerned workman alone is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. As stated, earlier, other inwaaees quoted by the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement have not all been proved in this case. Further from the available records and evidence, it is seen that the punishment imposed for the proved major misconduct of the delinquent employee, as per the provisions of tho clauses-in the Bipartite Seitfemcnt Hence the punishment is not disproportionate to tho delinquency or I"e .8™vrty of the misconduct. It cannot be said tint it Is highly arbitrary, or discriminatory. Tho Hon'hle Supreme Court has held in many cases that 'Wsappropriiitlon Of the bank funds irrespective of the amounts involved -Mtd eyen If no loss -it frittered by the batik, it"a^Jtou vjaooaduet pgfttHtfctrif

m* *WW$*|P #mm copy Of tf" enquiry proe"*dl0f"-7 3O • •• ' T HE G A Z E T TE 07 I N D IA : D EC g ," 2 0 O 1 7 "JA G R A K A Y A NA 1 7, 1 9 23 [ F A RT O ^ - S E C? 3 ( 3 JT W5 06-03-09 to 09-03 89 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings.

W5 26-03-89 Xerox copy of th? written submissions submitted by the Presenting Officer.

W7 Nil Xerox copy of the £.id:ag3 of the Enquiry Officer.

W3 21-08-89 Xerox cony of the final order of the Disciplinary Authority.

W9 04-11-89 Xerox copy of ths final order of ths Disciplinary Aulhority.

W10 17-02-JO Xerox copy of tiie order of Appellate Authority.

W il 18-C9-C0 Zercr. cc?? c: t'-o report issued to M. Mannlnran by Ban!: of Earcda.

Wi2 25-07-91 Xcro\ co-y c" the order >—d:d by the Disciplinary Auihority to Cri M. Maacharan.

W13 C^-OS-92 ":rox c-ov c' re t o r ,! i:-ued by 1k: DiscpFnary Authority to Sri P. Rajac,opakn.

W14 Cf-0£-92 Xerox ccpy of the list showing the alle- gations in the charge sheet.

W15 Cl-O'-P') Xerox copy of the order issued by tho Appollato Authority.

For the II Parly/Management:

Ex. No. Bate Description

Ml K'l _ Xerc.i ccrr/ of tho enquiry, report wi;!i d:poii;icn and exhibits.

1.12 19/20-I0-S3 Xerox copy of the Cc-xrer fJod by "?-e Kmagsnrjit before Assistant Labour Coiari'csionsr (Central).

M3 20-12-93 ' Xerox copy of ths rejoinder fJ-d by the U^xn b?foro Assistant Labour Commissioner (Cehtral). __ . . - - <. , . '.

'3.14 25-01-S-! Xerox chvv of the rep'.y. of }:??nc-~??.yrt to tin Ur'cn's rr;c:cdor before Assistant Labour CemmV.ioner ('Central); Chennai.

Now Djih⁵, ths I9ih -November, 2001 • - • SO. 3322.—la t5u"'.T-ri3T cf S:c5?'r. 17 r:;'t-:9 Trrr.-*'?.-.!

ANNEXURE

EHFCS.5 THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI3UNALrCUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar.

ADJUDICATION

I.D. NO. 16912000

R'.f. No. PL-12011|173!20CO|IR(B-II) dated 31-10-2000

BETWEEN

Gcr.eral Secretary, C/o R::dhoy I.lchrotra Nr.rr.in Bhawan Dh&Wc.n Road Unnao (U.P.).

AND

TJ:o H3?i.ir.l Managir, Alhhzb.d B-uk. Re-'on."l Of:\c?, H-izratganj LuLir-ow (U.P.) 226018.

AWARD

Ey crd-r No. L-12011|173|2CC0[lR (E'-H) dated 30-10-2000, the Ccrtrr.l G3v:*nnent in the Min-:-try of Labour, in exercise c? powers cbiiL.'rred' by clause (&) cf Sub-section (i) and Sub-s-c'.i?rr2(A) af S^c^icn 10 I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) rcCsrrcd crer vhis industilal dispute between General Secre- tary C|o R".t!:ry ?.;-.hrotrc, Unnao r.nd the Regional Mana- ger, Atkhabad, Lucknow for adjudication.

The ref.rcncs is F''°"ucrd as under:

"V/hethir tho ac'-ion of the Management of Alla'ubad Br.rl; in ir-ipcsing a puBis'uiibiit of wi;hdraw^l of Special AllcV'T.ncc upon Radhey Mohan .Mehrotra, S^~ci?J Acsictsr.t, Unnao Branch, was legal and jtrified? If not, to what relief the workman is - entitled to?"

2. -Th? r-"rl:va:n, Rii'hcy Mohan Mehrotra was posted as Spccirl As:":tint at A'l-h'.b^d Bank, Unnao branch at the reicvict tii.:3. Itz V.T.S ro^'ved with a charge cheot No. ROL| V:G!20G c.i!.:d 'iQ-A-'A'JA by the Regional I/'anagerlDiscipli- r.:ry Au'-hori;y, LucUnoiv. Xh? g:id charge sheet preceded by'a di.:." d L]v;7'i'-'.:ic_i ccndco'.cd by.R.K. Rawat of the Vic;il:r.co E'anch. The chargo sheet cdr.tnined six article of c":arr:~s. F..K. Jfca, r-n cScsr of tho bank, was appointed as Enqvky O.^-C.-r. A K. C'n't was deputed as Presenting Ofiicer to r.ssict in tho enquiry.

2. Dr.-ir- tho emir-s of enquiry the Kanageiasnt e^arrJnsd fi.^^ ,v/K;:"f".^ r:JE-i;' l\-'.'/-l A:r't::L"h K"2?ar, i IW-2 R.N. K^k!":.r; t"A Tiiv,'-3 Il-K. Ts^'L*, Dcciueriary evidence, with a viuv/ .o r-f,-/o f':r.':™;s, rur.ib^rJd ICE-1 to ME-S6, was "Vo fil'd. T3:> wcrkrr.cn r.'so enair.'rcd oae dofencs wiiness B7/-t K:r i oh anker Aw~.i:hi and relied on documents DE- 1 :o' DiZ-11. Tho enqviry prcceoded before the parties. Ths r'c:i-:;i;"S' V.TC rctijtcd by his defence representative Qnl . " ' Fici.fEh ri;pcor.

J-. Ti.3 F'^v-'rv Officer, on consiarring eviasnee tendered by ih.3 r"-'i ''" ::".d ;'';o tin'pciucal of-'records found charges 1 r.nd 5 r t e vd f.rd charge 2 p-ir'ly proved. J-Ie did not find s¹!-.•'-'.'nii^l e-"',je;jca to p.cvo charges 3, 4'and 6. This ciora^xic cr"^":/y cr:r.Ei^:c:'d on 28-3-95 and'lasted mors tlifn tv.o ;-rj:a t."!- .12-5-19&7. •

,-7341

in agreement v/Iih pea-lty order and repcted the appeal v:ds his order No. CZO|VIG|Acpsa!|425 dr.tsd 30-6-1999.

6. The- workman en geUha no rcli:f from the in>rir.~smer:!

of the tank, rrhed this Ir.d.'i.'.-'a'. iJlpu'.j which "t'r.s reix.red to this Tribunal for adjudication.

7. Main pleas raised on belief of tho workmen are that the t ub of nc'ur&l jvstlce was u^en eo bv d r r l n ^ fu enquiry; that th3 Enquiry Ofilcsr did not provide rivjiiJs?.- tlcn rerort orepared by MV/-3 to enable the work'.nrm to cross exemine y C'iiPcv wrcT>!y conducted himself in itiftoclrr.g the documents behind the b:.ck of (be workman; that tlrs findings r e g i es to charge 1 -TO p-r"-er3e; f. rit the /friii^s "/ u-'W"\t!?d. It his aho b?ei pbrdec! bv tli? v/crknan th?.i i^s withd:?w=l of 'Sr-cinl A1?ov?nco' is not time bon-d to indica'e as how Song tho punishment wou'd ho effective, and, is thus illegd.

R. The man-if^ment contested p.llos-.tions and justified fir-ding? of the Erquivy Ofjcer. It contended tW Iho e>r;.in-v was rmdnct'-d in accedence w'Jh role of natural justice and approved prccedi:r£3. Throm'i cut th"- crrn;-v, ;hi r,>r,:"-nv\i w,i; given' Mberty to "o tt-rauqh th3 cbevments fm-exairr^n- tion Vie witness and ?nVe notice of !'-s oTC"r-rrfi' The workiP'in WTS ref^sf-ntcd bv repwntntivs o* h's own chnVe. No nr-:ji"i:ccs occ,osicr>cd to the r'"T i'tTn and the punish- ment is commer'surats v/ith the allegations.

9. Two preliminary issues ->s f.-iUow, were framed by this Tnb"?"! by order dated 2S-8-2001.

(i) Whe*hcr the domestic enqnrrv culminating into nuntsh- ment to the wo'krafn VLJJ. Mehrotra, ir> shr.r.e of withdrawal of special a!'o*vance was fair and proper?; and

(ii(> \s/hpth?"- !hs fiTid'^TS "f th? Er.ruiry Officer suffer with vice of perversity?

enquiry zzirl tho said btter was prodBced. Ths Presenting Oiflcer hr.d not co;"!C"?.lsd &zrj fact about h;s antic pa'-Lin that the ucfcr.C3 wcvld ci.rm this docuaacat. There is no m;,terl:I on r:cc;d to indicate that tiia sr.id Isllir was mani- piLn.cJ. ICr.':i i::vJ3.isc.ir.il v/rs c:-.rr.ed cai cjuijiit o;:e R ao G;p.:i £r>,::sL27.: oi thu sa'd bi3;ich T/:IO v/a: d!'.m'.c:cd Lor.i serviss. u cno coc-s ti.rauih lira prir'^s ot" char~2s it shows that the workman was found guilty of negli- g'nc.3 as Iu over locked tho approved norms of vvoiking and foccd.T3 Vv'h:ch c?.r.ced \7;lhc"r..v/f.l of hujp amount by Rnm Gcp;.i SriVi'.str.va a co-v/orker. In fact, this document was i ot. u .u.t;rl J.:)- tls.j pu;po:cj cf cro:>:x..i2.-- '.lea rf iiW-3. Ths arjj'-'-raf"" hrs no force snd is, thus, rejected.

^1^. In ;his ccplext it h-.s also been submitted th-t Ihe F'ivilej,e chorJd h'rv? b en cl.iimed by the Disciplinary Au- ;h'j_-:'.y fiid net by the Appclii'e Authority i.e. Dy. General M-Jnr,°?r.' In (!:e ad'mhiq iai'ivo hicrachy, decision about con- , tent c' cecuincpfs, '.vhotiier privl'j^c-d, may be lakai.by the hKher aui':: ri::es clc"e'id:ii" iv.on the nr/.v.re of misconduct. L •?. D.". .CoJ?:A I'l'i'iri'Vi, ly 1 '' IJU": e!>"rr; d pr^iills^e it d'd nr¹. r.T:ct the v,orlisi"-n in rsi\y mannsr. It hrs been ' observed errllcr the"t the doclTr;r~:f WP.S cot relevant'ftr the jrurr""c: cf e"qi'i~y rg"inst the ^workman. T.he .onus v/as on tk?_vb'lrro?n to p-ove prejudices due to-non-supply of invosti- ; at • T r ^ - o v i. 11 : rc a v e r m e n ts c ' a i f - i ' rm p r : j r . d-c3 . is n ot • s "r7" e - s f, j ,T- '_ - v -r ;- Q -T t [ ~Q i T c c rd tc • • t i ^ y -l ~ ' ' ^t t h . ' te t-::'r;r:d v'o'".":on o^ fire*'".*" of rVJifiV justice v'';iiti'i^ ths Pi>"vry. II I rs r'rerefy b~fn observed that tho Enqu:ry Officer v r- irdci-cr.dci;t cerrDj ,-^'d he viewed the inatcr;;Js on recrrt: v / 'a ope'i rci:id "rid recorded his charge wiis find- • m"3. Thur. thp'n'Jn-fU'je'.y c" th" :~"":/'".:•'.:' n '•-—so--, during enquiry wrs r et fatal to the cause of the workman.

13. Th" r--xi Piihn^.'fsiors n<" (he vorkrmn, is. tint the En- f>T<3 wpr"r v.>;*"r.-e r.-.f-v'^r! h h ' ^0 w'*"l^-Tivpl. p v mj l-t? i fe b " " ! '. TT-tj f ,o ,,,OT.,._1"n :co.-,r;.af^ 'V"-Jre¹f w'th *""" J"^Tr;r!r-5. rilc]7 ^ , , ~, v,;o,,",.„„,„, j ,y o c^_T C^v,.rr v /^ 'T l ot ^ - - • ^ o^ ^ " ^^ r i rhe c e rr > ¹3T c < Te "i ^ - ^ — .T I ~ T. f ^ r -. T ?;^ ^ , , , :r-r / - \ ^ e ^_ - n - , ~* tt ,o ,T,o. i — ^r , , , . „„ „ „ • ! - ,, o J: _ . . - ,;. ^r {, , . ^, „ „ ,, „ < . „ _ • „ „" j •„ ^ . . ^v."

parpr! hv P.K T"oWr"t. TfVM. T!^:<; ^^•>-'f' fH-^ w'-r-ti~. r* r " "e ^Q of *'-" P"ni'*rv ^^v-n-t. TJi" Pnn>i:-v Ofri'-ov n n W^ JVnrr^'pfely fherp,of^"r. the ^ve^^f'iiTcr o ^ ^ ov cf^-f-pri ft>^f

. , . . ;_ ^ ^ / ^ o . /i 1 0 07 ; - o , - -4 I - ,, * ' -, i , • „ ! , ,_ ^ , , t %O |, .- - -„ „ ! „T , - ,• . .„

iriie'y^ l^'"c fil.'S'^ 1"Vr T Ki A 1^? r"f t ^a iT'^r¹--^^-^ C'7''^HV'^ T™tr~?™Ti:'r'iV°~'re. T^e r^^^^^^ni^ti^ 'v^s nri'r ?v⁷-i**^ 'h°* i^e

15. A"- r""'Tl<, - r>Vi-•'•!'>-> o-. ••"-? " - •• of ' :^ ' '. i "e T " . . " :, c h = " ; ' . ' on by < } . ". w " * — : • • • -> • ' ". ^* •- •• r- . o - . - . ,i tlie"^ T"^- m r K i B:i" to ri"':0 n letter Dt:^r to *'>'"• d^*e jo 0 ⁰? seems to h? P fo'T'd l^tif, tjrerTed s'ibn^o'"?"if- hr- ^r'~^"fi^nr if_ ix/'^h ^ vi°iv fo rf"t'">* c^rT^^ r? ^^^ v'^vi"- m^n. T'->:S '-iihtTsic^Vn "-"eTrri t^> he r " f j - " ^ ™ - ir T^'V-'T, <|-.^ rirnre"!"'!" dnfpcl 9-5-1Q97, t h" p-.'';ri,, o f ' i eT b?ii C^-Vi=(l E I: , ' • - ': i y n r . - " c : .: v i " - ' d - r vl o^ - - - c hl r ' V - r . - j -W i- ^ - ot n •? " " e i^'ns Q^+^'TiArf T^ftg TT;p"-r? *Qr"f^o^ri^iinn' ^ i r r ion r°^e~ ' "" s rd is vei Y" =••-•'•;•-I -^' . F n q u i rv Offic-r ( ' " s Vd t h at c o py of t he ! .• :•: '••: •;• ; •; .' "refore c o m n l o t i aa c| t he imZ THE GAZETTE Qi? INDI^: QgC 8j 2ML/-dgflflffftTANA 17, 1923 [Piwwt Jt^SfflC. ^Ji)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank is justified in denying the negotiating rights hither to extended by the management to the Vijaya Bank Employees Association unilaterally ? If not, to what relief the union is entitled ?"

If. Ram Gopal Srivastava was A oowwter. Hist activities were suspect. A" a Special Awitfam. the workman \M"t re- quired to- be more cautlousi and vigilant, hut he failed to discharge his duties in effective manner, and thus, in fuels and circumrtEnces of the case, he was nghtly bold guilty on charges 1 and 5 and partly on charge 2. The punishment is also not' excessive. The dispute raised by the workman has no merit and¹ the workman is not entitled to any relief.

IS. Award accordingly,

Lucknow, 23-UK20O1.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

2. The workmen of Vijaya Bank represented by Vijaya Bnnk Employees Association, trade union rt-Ristered under the- Trade Unions Act, 1926 has registered this d'spute and; the Government of India by its order dated 2$th April, 1997 has referred this for adjudication.

7343

4f the management of the Second Party in taking away the negotiation-rights of the first party trade union unilaterally and denial of the negotiation rights unilaterally is 'most arbitrary, unjust and unfair and further pass ah award declar- itiff that the first party trade union is entitled to the negotiation. " rights as it existed prior to issuance of Circular No. 185/93 dfcted 27-9-1993 by the Second Party.

11. Against this the case of the management is as follows :

12. -Acceding to management the dispute pertains to' denial of negotiation rights to the' first party union. There are two unions functioning in the $eoond Party Bank viz. Vijaya Bank Workers Organisation affiliated to KOBW. Prior to the year 1978 the bank was dealing with VBEA in all matters relating to service conditions concerning the workmen in the Bank. In 1980 bahk pronounced the policy wiih regard to negotiation and arriving at settlements with the workmen union. There are two unions one formally recognised by the Hank by Virtue of its majority claim, viz. VBWO and the Other by conduct recognised on account of the fact that the sold Union, viz. VBEA • was the only representative union of workmen employed in the^ Bank till 1978. The details of VBWO Is also stated in the Counter. The rival union had raised the issue of de-recognition o( VBEA that the manage- ment is to consider it.

13. The demand of the other union i.e. VBWO for negotiating only with the majority union, which VBEA felt that the management would agree.

14. It is the further case of the management that a meeting Was held before the ALCfC), Bangalore in which ALC ihformed the management that the issue has riot been taken lib for conciliation, Vut the meeting Was' an' effort to avoid any disturbance in the rJeacelul"atmosphere In the Bank by Industrial Unrest. No Industrial Dispute' pending before the C/Jtacillatiou "Officer and therefore, the bank declared its IfWmstrial relations policy by issue' of Circular "Mo. 1B5/93 arid VBEA raised an Industrial dispute i-egtirdlng withdrawal of negotlaTlhg fights.

15. It is also saW tHat sttme Writ Petitions *^re filed as per Para 7 Of the Ofltthter.

11<5. It is the further clise of thtf management that the Vijaya Bbnk Worfeers Organisation is the majority union, The'nianHge- oient has-istued a circular No. 1*5/93 dated 27-9-93, informing that th* tank will wrictly follow the Circular No. 5/80.

; 17. The First parly union cannot claim that the Second Party should •negotiate With them as a matter of right. It is the discretion of the management depends upon the policy of the.management in recognising the Union. Allegations made- by the first party union are nt>t correct. Parawise reply isi also given by the manafement.

18. It is the further case of the management that a case was filed before the High Court of- Karnataka and the same was dismissed On 16-11-1979. Detail history of the Writ Petition has been stated in the Counter.

.19. Now the management has contented in (he counter that, a plain reading of the Circular No. 1 85/$3 and Annexure thereto, clearly Indicates that negotiation rights of ifie first pjrty uhiftn are not withdrawn as allegtfd by the workman. Fne manairfrheht for these reasons and for many other reasons has prtyftd that this Tribunal please to ariswer with reference Jrl favour of the Second Party Bank.

20. I have h'edrd arguments of both sides. Certain docu- ments were fifed by the parries flhd the learned counsel for the management categorically submitted that the management has not denied the right of negotiation of first party union. I have perused the documents nnd circular filed by the parties. The first party union has filed one* nbte and I have read the same carefully.

21. In the instant case for the sake of convenience let me reproduce the dispute referred by the Competent Arithoriy for ndjudicat:on and award by this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of Viiaya Bank is jnWlfle'd in denying the negotiating rights hithrr to extended by the management to the Viiaya Bank Employees Association UhH|ttortiHy ? If-not, to what relfei the union "Is" eflffifcdT*

22. On the plain reading of the dispute referred it is clear that the management is not justified in denying the negotiation rights to the Vijaya BaWt- Employees Association unilaterally and if not, to what relief the union is entitled 7

23. It is seen from the records that the Conciliation Officer has also directed the management not to implement the Circular. The learned counsel appearing for the management has said that the management lias not taken away the nee _> tiating rights of the first party union in vitw of this jt is clear that the first party union has right of negotiation With it.

24. I have considered he decisions relied by the manage- ment reported in. AIR 1971 SC 1737. According to Ex. W. 43 the dispute referred is required to be adjudicated by this Tribunal.

25. It is also clear from the documents that VBEA used to negotiate and settle the dispute with the bank representing: the workman prior to issue of circular No. 185/93 dated 27-9-93. The Regional labour Commissioner has also informed the VBEA that the Bank has been advised to maintain status quo till the conciliation proceedings are concluded.

26. Considering all ^hjs the action of the management in issuing Circular No. lRff/93 is incorrect. In view of the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the management has stated in so many clear terms tWatthe management has not taken away the rights oTTligOtiatidn of the first party union, I am of the opinion that the management re hot justified in Issuing the Circular.

27. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that the management has categorically admitted that it has not taken away the rights of negotiation from' the first party union.

28. Considering all this I proceed vy pass the following Order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed. The Circular No. 185/93 Is held as not correct and the second party bank is directed to give the status and negotiating rights to the first party VBEA prior to 27-9-93 and from 1967 and the bank is directed to have meanmgful-negotiation'with the first party VBEA on all the industrial dispute (spoused by the Said VBEA. Accordingly the reference is disposed off.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 16th October, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNf, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001

S.O. 3324.—fct pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 6f 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relatipn to the manag'emeht of Bank of India atid tneir workmen, which was received by the' Central Government On 5-11-2001.

[No. L-l2012/217/96-IR(B-lI)] C GAW3AI&ARAN, Under Secy.

3#fO 'ttf/206l_20

7344 THE GAZETTE OF INBIA : 0EG.- fc 2001/ AGRAHAYANA-i-7,-1^- -LEA*T H—Sac. 3 CU)J

2. The averments In the Claim Statement of the I Party/ ANNEXURE

Gajmant are briefly as follows :—

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL!

TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHlijNNAl

Tuesday, the 18th September, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 439/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 61/97) (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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri Mrs. Mary. Esther, W/o deceased em- ployee R. Srinivasan and the Management of Bant of India, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, I Party/Claimant Bank of Indin Staff Union, Chennai. i

AND

The Zonal Manager, II Party/Management Bank of India, Chennai.

\PPEARANCE :

For the Claimant : Mr, S. Venkataraman &, S. Sairaman,

Advocates ' ' ''• " "'

For the Management :' M7s. S.- RarnasubramariTam &

Associates, Advocates:

The GoveYflment of India, Ministry of Labouf in exercise r of p a w ts 'conferred hv clause (d) of sub-section (1)" and *nb-

' "This reference "hHS been made' earlier to the Tamil Nadu ""ate Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file us I D. *Jf>. 61/97.; When the' ftiatter was pending enquiry in that TribuTiril, trir Government of India, Ministry of I ahour was ipknscd ,

The General Secretary Bank of India staff union has raised this industrial dispute on behalf of one Mrs. Mary Esther, the widow of deceased employee R. Srinivasan. The I Party/Claimant (hereinafter referred to a3 Petitioner) alleged in the claim statement that the said employee R. Srinivasan joined the services of II Party|Management Bank, of India (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) on 19-3-1976 and he died on 11-9-92 after completion of 17 years of service. At the time of his death he was working at TiruchirappalU cantonment branch. The said Srinivasan died due to liver problem leaving behind his wife and two children without any source of income whatsover Mrs. Mary Easter W.o. R Srinivasan submitted an application dated 28-1-1992 along with death certificate legal heir certificate, marriage certifi- cate etc. requesting for apopintment in the bank on compas- sionate grounds. There was no reply from the bank. Hence, she sent another appljcatiabn dated" 16-11-1994. Thereafter 6n 26-6-95, the bank sent a communication rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. No reason was stated in that letter as to why Mrs. Mary Esther was not entitled for -compassionate appointment in the RespondeflifBank. Thereupon the Petitioner union took up the cause of- Mr*. Ma.ry. Esther, and .raised a dispute by representation dated 19-7-1995. The conciliation ended in. failure. The denial of compassionate appointment to Mrs. frjary Esther is erroneous as it is contrary to guidelines and circulars. The circular governing conditions of service only laid down that when a case of compassionate appointment is taken up for conside- ration, no disciplinary proceedings against the deceased shall be pending or contemplated and such cases shall be referred to the Government of India. In the case of the deceased Srinivasan there is no averment or proof that any disciplinary proceedings was pending or contemplated on the date of his death. It cannot be denied referring to any punishment awarded to the employee earlier to the .date of his death. If the bank was justified in denying employment, the bank was expected to refer the matter to the Government of India and not assume the power to itself. The misconduct is something absolutely personal and the-consequence of punish- ment can be imposed only on the employee. There could be'no question of vicarious liability in these cirCurriiiances and-it was illegal and impermissible for "the bank to have denied the appointment taking into consideration the past / refcord of service of the deceased Srinivasan, The denial is arbitrary and malafide and violates Article 14 and 16 of •Constitution of India. The Respondent[Mariagemcnt is not following a uniform policy in giving "compassionate appoint- ments. After raising this dispute one Mr. Argumugam, a driver-cum-sub-staff died on 31-12-96. At the time of his death a charge sheet \vas issued and the process of inquiry was completed, But before passing the final order "on the en- quiry, Mr. Arumugam expired. The Petitioner .gave rep- resentation seeking compassionate appointment for the son of deceased Arumugam. The"Respondent|Bank initially" resi- sted. However, finally the bank gave appointment 'to the son of AramuRam, A. Gautham on compassionate ground and presently, (he said A. .Oautham is working at Ambatlur Branch, of the Respondent|Bank. Thus there is a clear dis- crimination adopted by the Bank in granting compassionate appointment to,the kith and kin of deceased employee. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award hold- Inn that the denial pf appointment to Mrs. Mary Esther w|o, deceased employee R. Srinivasan is illegal and unjusti- fied and direct the Respondcnt|Management to give appoint- ment to -Mrs. Mary Esther from the date of death of her husband with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances.

W ^ TI the matter came up before me tor final hearing on 31-07-2001. ironn perusinpf the Claim Stutempnt, Counter Statement- fh<\ otfi^r, material rtapors pn record, the documen- tary evidrnc? let in on either side, unon hearinsr th- argunr-nts flrtvnncfrt hy %b<\ I<-^rnod counsel on either side and th'i matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal hns passed the following :—

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the n Party|

Management are briefly as follows :—

AWARD

TTv•'ndu"'r'al Di-nute referred to, in the above order of •""frrtner +vv thr r"ntral Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as folows-: —^-

".Wh"W the-aotionr'iDf "t*i4t -Management of Bank of Tndr\ Chennai, in d^nyinn- the antiiintm^nt ™ com- mss'onntf grounds to MYs. Marv T-'flth<*r Wif> of

The II PartylManacement, Bank of India has filed the Counter Statement alleging that the Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on the plea that. the denial of appoint- ment by the Respondent to Mrs. Mary Esther W|o. deceased employee. R. Srinivaspn is not .lesal and justified. The claim of the. Petitioner, is mainly based .upon-the Scheme of de- pendent of the deceased employee -working In-the bank may he ,co.n,cidered for employment on oompassiona+e annotatment oh certain conditions, Mrs,.Mary Esther cannot claim emp- loyment on compassionate appolntmern,,ns ,~a matter of right7345 and the claim made by-Mrs. Mary Esther has been rejected by the Respondent as per the claim applicable in the Res- pomlent|Bank. As per Rule 6(11) of the Scheme, the General Manager or Executive Director may decline any request tor employment of any person under the scheme, without asking for any reason, basing upon this Respondent has rejected the application made by Mrs. Mary Esther to be considered for appointment in bank on compassionate ground. The Respon- dent has justified in rejecting all the applications for appoint- ment of Mrs. Mary Esther on compassionate grounds. Before considering the application, the previous condact of Sri R. Sri- nivasan while in service were considered and during the tenure of his employment, late R. Srinivasan was imposed with punishment tor having committed acts of misconduct involving financial indiscipline. Late R. Srinivasan did not have a clean servico record. It is not necessary for the Res- pondent to disclose the reason for not considering the appli- cation made by Mrs. Mary Esther for any appointment in the RespondentlBank on compassionate grounds. Since there was no disciplinary action pending at the time of the death of R. Srinivasan, there is no necessity to refer the applica- tion of Mrs. Mary Esther to the appropriate Government in terms of bank's guidelines. Giving aypointment to one Sri Gautham, dependent and son of late Arumugam has no bearing to the case recommended by Union. The facts re- lated to compassionate appointment of the said Arumugam are different from the application made by Mrs. Mary Esther for appointment on compassionate ground. In any event, the Respondent| Bank has got every right to decline any request for employment of a dependent on compassionate ground. The Respondent [Bank considers the application made by the dependent of deceased employee after having fulfilled the norms laid down by bank and the consideration ot any application for appointment on compassionate ground is puerly under discretion of the Management and this discretion can- not be questioned by the Petitioner Union. Being a financial institution, the bank has got every rifiht to waive the appli- cation made by the dependent of deceased Mr. R. Srinivasan for appointment in the RespondentlBank. Hence, this Hon' ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute as not maintainable.

,•

4, When the matter was taken up for enquiry, by the consent of counsel on either side, documents on either side were marked as Ex. Wl *Jid W2 and Ml to M4 respectively. Neither side have let in any oral evidence. The learned coun- sel on either side has advanced their respective arguments.

5. The point tor my consideration is—•

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India, Chennai, in denying the appointment on compassionate grounds to Mrs. Mary Esther, Wife of deceased employee R. Srinivasan, Ex-staff of Trichirapalli Cantonment Branch is legal and justi- fied? If not, to -what relief the said widow Is en- titled?"

Point :—

the compassionate ground made by the widow of the deceased employee R. Srinivasan. In the Counter it is stated that in the Scheme it has been clearly mentioned that under Rule 6(,H) the General Manager or Executive Director may dec- line any request for employment of any person under the scheme without assigning any reason. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement that before considering the appli- cation, the previous conduct of late R. Srinivasan, whdc he was in service was considered and during the tenure of his employment late R. Srinivasan was imposed with punishment for naving committed acts of misconduct involving tinancial indiscipline. He did not have a clean service record. In the Counter, the Respondent has admitted that they have filed an objection beiore the conciliation proceedings SLaang that in view of late R. Srinivasan having committed acts of mis- conduct involving financial indiscipline and subjected to disciplinary action while in service, he was awarded various punishments on three dilferent occasions, the Competent Au- thority has not inclined to consider the application for com- passionate appointment of late Sri R. Srinivasan in bank's service. From this, it is evident that the reason for rejection of application of the widow oi the deceased employee late R, Srinivasan for appointment in the Respondent|Bank on compassionate grounds is only the punishment awarded to her husband when he was in service for his misconduct. It is further admitted in the Counter Statement of the Respon- dent that there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against the deceased late R. Sririvasan, while at the time of his death. Ex. Ml to M3 are the xerox copies of the circulars of the Respondent|Bank dated 1-2-1982, 28-2-1983 aud 19-10-1987. respectively. Ex. M4 is the xerox copy of the instructions dated 11-1-1989 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance to all the Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks. In all these four documents, nothing has been stated that the requisition made by heairs of the deceased employees can be rejected, if the past record of the employee, while he was in service of the bank, is not upto the mark. In para 11 of the Counter Statement, the Rospondent|Bank has clearly stated even though , no disciplinary proceedings was pending against the deceased employee late R. Srinivasan while at the time of his death, the Respondent/Bank has every power to decide the applica- tion made by the widow of late R. Srinivasan for appoint- ment on compassionate ground's and in this particular case, the Respondent|Bank has already considered the conduct of late R. Srinivasan, while he was in service. This decision of the Management cannot be' considered as justified in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in a case reported as 1997 (1) LLN 951 Smt. Saroja Shivakumar Vs. State Bank of Mysore. In that case, it is held that "there would be lrc* question of vicarious liability and under such Circumstances, it was wholly impermissible for the bank to have tuken those circumstances into consideration and the refusal of compas- sionate employment was not justified." In that case, the Bank Manager was placed under suspension for misappropriation of funds. Before the enquiry was completed, he passed aWay. The enquiry was abated. Under such circumstances, it is held that "the deceased employee's son is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.'¹ Here in this case, the Res- pondentlBank has admitted that no disciplinary proceedings was pending against the deceased employee late R. Srrnivnsan at the tfme of his death. As per the Scheme under Ex. M4 such appointments on compassionate ground will be consider- ed in the excsptronal and genuine cases, if the bank is satis- fied that the condition of the deceased employee's family is indigent and in great distress. It is not the case of the RespondentlBank 'hat the widow of the deceased employee late R. Srinivasan was in an affluent status, when.she applies for appointment in the Respondent/Bank on compassionate grounds and the family of the deceased employee is not indi- gent and not in great distress. Under such circumstances, it can be said that the action of the Management of Bank of India in denying the appointment on compassionate grounds to Mrs. Mary Esther, wife of the deceased employee late R. Srinivasan, ex-stafF Of Tiruchirappalli Cantonment Branch is not legal and justified. Hence, the request of the widow Mrs. Mary Esther has got" to be considered favourably by the Respondent|Manageinent "Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

6, In the result, an award is. passed, holding that the action It is not disputed by the Respondent that Mrs. Mary Esther is the wife of deceased employee R. Srinivasan, Ex-staff of Tiruchirappalli Cantonment of Respondent|Bank Branch. Ex. Wl is the copy of the application dated 16-11-1994 submitted by said widow to the General Manager (Personnel) Head Office, Bombay of the RespondentlBank. It is stated in the letter itself that the Petitioner has already submitted Doctor Certificate and legal heir certificate and also her marriage certificate with her husband late R. Srinivasan. The xerox copy of the Doctor Certificate as well as the legal heir certificate have been filed by the Petitioner in this cas-e. The fact that Mrs. Mary Esther, the applicant for compassionate appointment is the wife of deceased employee late R. Sriniva- san and she is the legal heir along with her daughter and "on as per the legal heir certificate iwued by the authority are not disputed. Ex. W2 is the xerox copy of the letter letter dated 26-6-1995 by the General Manager, Head Office of Bank of India to the Zonal Manager, Southern Zone, Madras. In that letter, it is stated that the Management has reiterated its decision conveyed under letter dated 8-2-1994 and they regretted Mrs. Mary Esther's request for compas- sionate appointment cannot be considered. As it is contend- ed by the Petitioner in the Claim Statement, no reason has been awlgned for rejecting th© cjaijn for appointment on

of the management of Bank of India In denying the appoint-

ment 0n eompasiloMte ground^ Jo M,rp, Mary Either, Wtft

7346 THE GAZETTE OF 1NPIA : EfEC ?, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART H W S $ C. 3{U)]

PflESBNt;

K. Karthikeyan, ProtWing 6mc"r.

i N p y ' S t R U ll DISPUTE NO. 434/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 42/97> of th"t.dec*w4,*WJIfl!y*"' late Jt, S f j n l v a j a t v E ^ fl jpf, Tiru- chiwpcdli ewjtonteent BWjicfe is llkasj, u& ipmtjfled. Hwgo th* J^Tparty/tyaoaaomeQt Of B^ of India )t dpeeted t","ivB..BH gpRt)i(rtmw" tQ tfy c?Bf*ffl^ *MlW=ol" j W* •ionajte grounds, according to, her suitability for thf post wjjbio three months of this, prdw- No, Cost,

(Dictated tq the Stenographer, transcribed an.d typed by him, cfiWected an

{In the matter of the dispute for .adjudication under clause, (d.) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) ot Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Aqt, 1947 (H of 1947), bet- ween the Workman Sri A.. Selvaraju and, the Management of Syndicate Bank, Chennai,]

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

BETWEEN

Sri A. Selvureju.

I Party/Worjunara On, ei.tb,er iid<" : NOW-

ANt>

DOCUMENTS MASKER :

For I PartylClalmaut:

Ex. No. Date Description

Tho Assistant General Manager II Party/Manajiement (IR cfcll>. Syndicate Bank, Chennai.

Wl 16-H-9A Xerox copy of the letter from Smt. S.

M"iy Esther to Head Offloe.

APPEARANCE 4

Fpr the Workman ; M/s, Bajan Haridas &. R. K,amajcl>i W2 26-6-AS Xerox copy of the letter f*Qm. Majjagwnwt to S^I. S. Mary Esther, W,[o dwWWed. workman.

Sundaresarj, Advocates,

For the \I Party[Management.:

For the Managejnfrnt: M/s. T. S. Qopalarj & Co.

Advocates.

E^ No, D^te Description

Ml 1-2-82 Xerox copy of the Circular of Bank of Infjia,

HO and details of the Scheme.

M2 28-JJ-83 Xerox copy of th" Circular issuod by Bank

of indja H.Q., Admn. No. 1983|16.

M3 19-10-87 Xerox copy of tht( Or

The Government of Ihdiat Ministry of Labour in exercise of pGWets conferred by clayse, (dl of sub-s?ction (1) and sub-section 2(AI ofSection 10 of Industrial Disputds Apt, 1947 (14 pf 19471, have referred the concerned Industrial DisputB for adjudication vide Ctrilet No, L-12Q12^1.93l96-l&. (Bi^fi) dated 2WW-1W7.

of. India H,£X

M4 11-1-89 Xorox eppy of thff letter of MtoWry of Finance to the Chief Executive^ p£ all PubMp Seci^r Banks with rigard to a^pojnf^uj of dependents of deceased employees, op Compa^iionE^to grounds,

Tbia rcfeje.nw has been made earlier tQ, the Tamil NadU State Industrial tribunal, where it was t^Jken on filfe as, ID- No. 42/97. When the matter was pending enquiry in' that Tribunal,, tr/p Qoyejnnignt of India, Ministry of Labour was phased, tq oMe* t e w s^ of, this case from that TritninaJ to thi^ TtibuqaJ fop i adjudip"tiop. Qa receipt, of recoros from tljat Tjifeupal, the case baa open, taken on file as LD. No. 434/QOpl and notices were sent tt> trie counsel'on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this TribunaL with: a'dipp^iqn tq appear before this Tribunal on 26-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the coun^l on, cither si,d" present with their respective parties and prosecuted this- case further.

When the matter came, up before me for. ,final hearing on 2JT08'-2QO1, upon perusing thp Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the rejoinder, the documents filed on the side of the Management, arid other material records,- and upon hear- ing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AW-ARR

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

New Delhi, tho 19th Novomber. 2001

"Whether -"CKm of the, Management of Syndicate Bank, Madias in dismissing the services of Shri A, Sclvaraju is legal and justifled? If- not to what relief the said workman Is entitled ?"

2. "Die facts of the industrial dfspute between the parties

are briefly as follows :—

S.O. 3325.—In pursuance of JtactJoo 17 of. the TndjiBtrJnl Dispute Act, 194f (14 of 1S>47>, the CentftJ CfoMrffieht hereby puWj"h"B the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as Shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers In relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and ffieir Workman, which Ayas received by the Central Government 6p I2-11-2

[No, L-12$12yi95/96JR(B-II)]

C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRA^ Q p y E R N M ^ X . I N D y S T R I AL

The I Party /Claimant Sri A. Selvaraju (hereinafter' refeft to a$ Petitioppr) was .working as a; Clerk'in the Trichy branch of the Respondent/II PartF/Management Syndicate Bank during th* period 7 ^ 9 4, to. 22-J0.87. On 27-9-84 one Mrs. DhanabakkJam opened a S.B. Account.No. 15553. She was introduced by thfl Petitioner. As per th* ledger folio of thfe branch on 14,3-8$, there was a credit balance of Rs. 911.65 in tfte said, account. The ledgef folio between 14*3-8* and lfcl}'$$, lt '⁸ revealed that there were sevoraj. transactions S. TRP^JSl••ffi*- WitMowak, with, a credit Dalance of Rs. 1487.05 poor to 13-11-86, On 13-11-86 the accountholder come to the branch and approached the Petitioner with ^ Friday, the 21it September, 20017347 dismissal and directed the Petitioner to appear oeiore mm for Wersohai hcatirfgF THe¹ Petitioner attended the personal hearing- 6h-28-5-9"fiand made Wi ^utmisjion*. The Disciplinary Authority who gave- the-personal hearing has retired. So subsequently, no tfrral' order 'would be passed. The subsequent Disciplinary Authority had- fixed the personal hettriHS on 25"1O-9O, 2-11J90 and on 20-11^90. The Petitioner d"j not appear. On 24-12-90;- the said Disciplinary Authority had passed orders dismissing the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. On 20-6-91 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Subsequent to the dismissal of- the Petitioner from service by the Responderit/Mariaeemcnt On 24-12-90; the present dispute has beeir raised iff the year 1995.

3. The contention of the Petitioner in tl\e Claim Statement is that he received a letter dated 11-6-88 sent by the Vigilance Cell. He entrusted that letter to his association for giving reply; The association sent a letter to the Vigilance cell re- questing a month's time to. give a reply. Before the Petitioner could get a reply from his association* he was served with a charge sheet dated 29-9-88, and the Management went through the enquiry as a ritual. The Enquiry Officer was biased and prejudiced in giving hit findings inspite of his personal, satisfactory explanation submitted to the Disciplinary Authority the management dismissed the Petitioner from strvices. The Appellate Authority on 20-6-91 casually without application of mind dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and confirmed the order of dismissal from services. The impugned dismissal order is not sustainable in law- and en facts and the Same is liable to bo set aside. The charge sheet issued is barred' and uncertain and vogue ftn^ dot's hw based on any material. The Petitioner was not provided with the copies of documents relied on in the enquiry. The entire enquiry pro- ceedings are vitiated due to violation of principle! of natural justice. The Enquiry Officet was biased and prejudiced. The Enquiry Officer ought to have permitted the Petitioner to engage a lawyer to defend him in the face of the Manage- ment representative being a legally trained personnel. Tlje Respondent has not examined the material witnesses and material documents. The Petitioner has not been granted sufficient opportunities to establish hi* innocence. The enquiry was not fair and proper. The enquiry fljidings are not based on any legal evidence. They are based on conjectures and surmises. They arc perverse and motivated. The charges are not proved at all. There jg no incriminatory document/ circumstances connecting the dejinquent with the allegations. T(ie Petitioner has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The Petitioner has not been furnished with the copy of the proceedings. Punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges and the same is also excessive iind unconscionable. Tne impugned dismissal order is arbitrary, illegal', improper and unlawful. The same amounts to victimisation and unfair labour practice. Petitioner is entitled to reinstate in service with back wages, all attendant benefit^ and continuity of service. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'bfe Tribunal" may 6e pleased to pass an award for re- instatement of the Petitioner/Workman into his services with continuity of service back wages and all other consequential benefits.

4. It is alleged in the Counter Statement of the Respondent that the dismissal order wrfs passed afteY conducting depart- mental enquiry in consonamce with principles of natural justice and as per tire Bipartite, Settlement PrbvlSfans. The punish- ment of dismissal was awarded f6r ftrave riifsconduct of mis- appropriatibn of customers mCtney. Th$ Petitioner "wai g'veh due opportunity to vindicate his innocence. The Petitioner had access to the documents refied 6n in support of the charges. Before he was CalWd Upon, to Cross examine the witnesses; who were examined jn the enquiry, trie Charges were not false or fabricated. The entjuiry was "conducted Tn a fajr manner and the same has not been Vitiated for any violation of principles of natural justice'^ Tbe document which were rele- vant or which have the bearing on the charges Were marked in th-) enquiry. The flhdtngV of the' Hnqtifry Officer are supported by evidence let In m the enquiry:

7348 THE GAZETTE OF INpIA : DEC &..20OX/ AORAHAYA^A 17, 1923 [PART D ^ S B C. 3Gi)]

the entire enquiry conducted by the Respondent is vitiated. Apart noin uiis, the rejoinder proceeds on the tooting oi Oiacuiiion m respect 01 tne evidence ot the Management wit- nesses and exriiDits rued on tneir side. MW| in cross cxami- nauon nad admitted tnat she had received ail tne money with re-gal a to me uunaac 1.10ns made out in me cnarge sueet. Wnen bucu iyciDg me caso, trie bant cannot draw inference un certain cucumoiaiices to uie cnargos alleged againii ine Petitioner iu come to me conclusion or guilt. In me enquuy, it is esiaulisned by evidence tne nexus beiWeen tne Fetitiontr and trie relevant tiansactions and tneroDy we guilt oi tne fetuioner was daily proved. As tne Petitioner lias committed jjrave acts ol nns- conduct, tne punisnmcnt ot dismissal was iuuy ju^tJicd. me enquiry neid into me cnarges against tne ±*eujoner was lair anu pioper. Hence, this Hon blc Tribunal may be pleased to make an awaid upnoiding tne dismissal ol uie Petitioner by rejecting his claim.

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, before this Tribunal by Uie consent ot me counsel on eitner side, the Management documents liled by the management were marked as fcx. Ml to M2t>. No document has been hied on tne side ot tne Petitioner. On cuner side no one has examined as witness. The learned counsel on either iide have advanced tneir respective arguments.

7. The Point for my consideration is—

"Whether action of the Management of Syndicate Bant, Madras in dismissing the services ot Shri A. Selvaraju is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the s.aid workman is entitled ?"

Point:—

of the charge sheet issued to the concerned workman, tht domestic enquiry was conducted. The xerox copy of the enquuy proceedings is Ex. M19. Ex. M20 is the xerox copy ot ihe report ana findings of the Enquiry Officer Sn S. Iviohanthi dated 1-9-1989. The Enquiry Officer has given a linuing in ms report mat tne charge is proved against the delinquent employee well beyond uoubt and it amounts to commission QI gioss misconduct by the delinquent employee on av>ing acis prejudicial to the interest ot the bank as mentioned in the Charge sheet, Ex. M21 is the xerox copy ol me leuer dated 10-/-1990 sent to the petitioner enclosing hnuings of the fcnquiry Uhlcer proposed punishment with an auviso io appear tor personal hearing on 26-2-1990. Ex. M22 is tne xerox copy of ihe letter sent to the concerned workman Sri A. Seivaraju by me Deputy General Manager informing the concerned workman about the personal hearing hxed on 2>lO-yo wuh a direction to appear tor a personal hcaiing without fail. In that letter the concerned workman was duec-ed to make his submission. Ex. M23 is the xerox copy of ihe letter oaLcd 6-11-90 sent by the Deputy General Mana- ger to the concerned workman inforrmnjj him that the per- sonal hearing has ocen postponed to 20-11^1990. Ex. M24 is we xerox copy of the proceedings of ihe Deputy General Manager dated 24-12-90 after giving personal hearing and has passed the order of dismissing ihe concerned workman from service of the bank with immediate effect. Ex. M25 is the xerox copy of the submissions made py the concerned woikmun to tne Appellate Authority. Jix. Mlt is me xerox copy of the proceedings of the Appellate Authority dated 20-6-1991 and the order passed for dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner by confirming the punishment imposed by ihq Disciplinary Auunoiuy. ii is the contention ot ine 1'etiuonor that ihe enquiry was not fair and proper. The Petitioner had not been granted sufficient opportunity to establish his inno- cence and that the enquiry findings are not based on any legal evidence, but they are based on conjectures and sur- mises and they are perverse and motivated and the charges are not at ail proved. It is further contended that the Management has not filed into the enquiry, the relevant douc- ments and registers, which alone were falsified the alleged charges. The Respondent|Management would contend that the Petitioner failed to submit his explanation within the reasonable time for the charge sheet dated 29-9-1988 nor did he seek time for replying. The dismissal order was passed after conducting departmental enquiry in conson- ance with the principles of natural justice and as per the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. The Petitioner was given due opportunity to prove his innocence and he had access to the documents relied on in support of the charges before he was called upon to cross examine the witnesses who were examined in the enquiry. The charges were not false andjor fabricated. The enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and the same has not been vitiated for any violation oL prin- ciples of natural justice. The documents which Were relevant or which have a bearing on the charges were marked in the enquiry and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer arts sup- ported by the evidence let hi the enquiry which established the nexus between the Petitioner and the relevant transactions, threby the guilt of the Petitioner was duly proved. Hence, the punishment of dismissal was fully justified, at the Peti- tioner was proved to have committed grave acts of miscon- duct.

It is admitted that one Mrs. M. S. Dhanabakkiam was introduced by the concerned workman Sri A. Selvaraju for opening a Saving Bank Account No. 1^553 in the Respondent/ Bank branch at Trichy. Ex. Ml is the Xerox copy of the card containing the specimen signatures put by the account holder, when she opened the S.B, Account No. 15553 on 27-9-94. On the reverse side of the card, .is per tne xerox copy of the available in Ex. Ml, the concerned workman Sri A. Selvaraju, staff ot the bunk has signed in that curd as introducer; lix. M2 to M5 ere the Xerox copies of loose leaf cheques/withdrawal slips Jised for withdrawn! of amount from the S. B. Account No. 15553. Ex. M6 is tlic xerox copy of the cheque dated 31-10-86 for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 200i> from the S. B. Account No. 15553, Ex. M7 is the xerox copy of the letter addressed to the Manager, Syndicate bank for issue of loose cheque to the husband ot the account- holder of Mrs. Dhanabakkiam and to pay cash of Rs. 700 to him. It is written by the concerned workman A. Selvaraju. Ex. M8 is the xerox copy of the another letter for issue of loose leaf cheque for her husband and to pay cash of Rs. 350. Ex. M9 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 31-12-86 for issue of cheque book for the S. B. Account No. 15553. Ex. M10 is the xerox copy of the ledger folio of the S. B. Accpunt holder of Mrs. Dhanabakkiam. Ex. M il is the xerox copy of the challan for the receipt of cash of Rs. 5100 plus demand draft amount and Rs. 20 as exchange of it for issuing a demand draft to Bombay branch. Ex.. M12 Is the xerqx copy of the inland letter from the husband of Mrs. Dhanabakkiam informing her that the draft has not reached him. Ex. M IJ is the xerox copy of the letter dated 29-11-86, stating that he will pay back Rs. 5,100 at 6.00 p.m. on Monday. Ex. M14 is another letter written by the petitioner/workman to Mrs. Dhanabakkiam requesting her to wait for two days for him to arrange for money for payment, Ex. Ml5 is the xerox copy of the complaint preferred by the acount holder Mrs. Dhanabakkiam to the Manager, Syndicate JJank, Trichy narrating the transaction of the Petitioner with her in hand- ling her S.B. Account No. 155J3 in the bank branch. Ex. M16 is the xerox copy of the cheque dated 10-12-1996.issued for a sum of Rs. 5120 for the account No. 14405 without filling the name in the cheque in the oolumn 'Pay to'. Ex. M17 is the xerox copy of the pass book of S.B. Account No. 15553 of Mrs. Dhanabakkiam. On the basis of these documentary evidence, a charge sheet has been issued to the concerned workman by the Respondent|Management. The xerox copy of the charge-sheet dated 29-9-1988 is Ex. M18, wherein it is mentioned how and" what is the misconduct committed by the conoerntd workman Sri A. Selvaraju, Clerk of Trichy brauqh during 7-6-84 to 22-10-87. In purtUanc*

8. The perusal of the documentary evidence filed on the side of the Management as Ex. M19 enquiry proceedings and M20 findings of the Enquiry Officer clearly snow that in the domestic enquiry the concerned workman as,delinquent emp- loyee has taken part along with his defence representative and has thoroughly cross examined the Management witnesses Mrs. Dhanabakkiam, the account holder, arid Mr, Kalyana- raman, Officer, Vigilance unit.' Apart frdm them, there are sufficient documentary evidence to prove¹ that the charjje levelled against the concerned workman as delinquent emp- loyee in the domestic enquiry have been proved. From the evidence available in this case by way of documents, it is seen that the Petitioner|Workman taking advantage of his easy access to the pass book of the conrerned account holder Mrs. Dhanabakkiam and the bank ledger folio had deliberately concede the entries In the pass book and Blade records to show that he sent demand draft as per the request of the account holder Mrs. Dhanabakkiam. There are sufficient evidence to show that no demand draft Was t"Ken on 3-11-86. The charge sheeted, erpployec, the petitioner]workman has not chosen to examine himself ,ag a witness for the defence in the domeitic enquiry. It ii alto teen from the records that from 10-2-1990 to December, 1990 he ha" not given any explanation and the order of dismissal was passed by' the Disciplinary Authority only in December, 1990. So from all tho available evidence it is seen that there is no scope for -this Tribunal to interfere with the findings of the En- quiry Officer as it is decided in a case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 1998 1 LLJ 629 "the tribunal cannot inter- fere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless findings are perverse and not supported by any evidence." This is not the case of no evidence for this Tribunal to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

9. It is tho new averment of the petitioner in his belated rejoinder that the enquiry conducted by the Respondent is vitiated because the petitioner was denied of his right to have the assistance of a lawyer when the management is represent- ed by a legally trained personnel and that itself is a prejudice against the concerned workman. This stand has not been taken earlier by the Petitioner or hi* defence representative, when they faced the domestic enquiry. It is not the case of the Petitioner that one suih request was made to the Enquiry Officer and he denied one such opportunity to the Petitioner. Further, merely because the Management representative is said tO be a legally trained personnel, it cannot be said that he is an unequal match for the defence representative. For the averment in the rejoinder that the Managemnt represn- tativc Sri J. Hariharan, Assistant Personnel Manager is a legally trained personnel, no acceptable proof has been mads by th0 Petitioner. The other averments in the rejoinder is only in respect of analysation of oral and documentary evi- dence available in the domestic enquiry against the delin- quent employee merely because when the cross examination of MW1 has been done by the defence representative, after quite some time, MW1 has admitted that all the among due to her have been paid by the delinquent employee cannot remove the concerned workman from the proved misconduct mentioned in the charge sheet which are grave as per the clauses of the Bipartite Settlement. Hence, the belated aver- ment made through the rejoinder of the Petitioner are not tenable.

10. A perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well th* Appellate Authority under Ex. M24 and M26 respectively shows that both the authorities have analysed the. entire records and on application of their mind, have arrived at the decision they have mentioned in . those orders. So both the orders of those authorities cannot said to be vitiated on any ground.

11. Admittedly, for the dismissal of the Petitioner in the ypar 1990 December, the dispute has been raised only in 1995. It'Is'"contended in the Respondent counter itself that there was "inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner in raising the dispute and hence the claim of¹ the Petitionr should not be countenanced on the ground of delay, latches and inaction. No' explanation is ffiven by the petitronerlwoik- man for the long delav in raisins this industrial dispute. The Supreme Court of India has held in a case reported as 2000 I UB 157. The M=in^<"im'-rit of Wi, Tnriinn Tron and S'crl Co. Ltd. Vs. pragalat Singh that "when the claim was mad© after ar long delay, without any reasonable or justifying ground and there was nothing to explain the delay on record the Tribunal cannot grant him any relief," Here, in this case also nothing on record to explain as reason for long dclav by the Petitioner In Instituting this dispute for the- relief prayed for. Under suoh circumstances, it can be held that the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank, Madras in rii°mis

12. In the result, an Award is. passed holding thnt the nction of the Managempnt of Svndicate Bank, Madras, in dismissing tho services of Sri A. Selvaraju is lecal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

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

. K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding-Officer Witnesses Examined:

On -cither tide .- NQIW.

it® DOCUMENTS MARKED' i •

For the I Party|Workman : Nil.

For the n PartylManagement :

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 27-9-84 Xerox copy of the form for opening of • S.B. Account No. 15553—Mrs. Dhanabakkiam int- roduced by Petitioner.

M2 26-7-86 Xerox copy of the loose leaf cheque No. 460905 for Rs. 2500 S.B. Account No. 15553.

M3 2-9-86 Xerox copy of the loose leaf cheque No, 585501 for Rs. 1000 S.B, Account No. 15553.

M4 17-9-86 Xerox copy 6t the loose cheque No. 148056 withdrawal slip Rs. 700 S.B. Account No. 15553.

M5 29-9-86 Xerox copy of the loose cheque No. 267273 withdrawal slip for Rs. 350 S.B.-Account No 15553.

M6 31-10-8(5 Xerox copy of the Cheque No. 268952 for Rs. 2000—S.B, Account No. 15553.

M7 Nil Xerox copy of the letter of Mrs Dhanabakkiam to issue loose leaf cheque to her husband and to pay of Rs. 700 to him.

MS Nil Xerox copy of the letter from Mrs. Dhanabak- kiam to isue a loose leaf cheque to her husband and to pay cash .of Rs. 350 to him.

M9 31-10-86 Xerox copy of the letter from Mrs. Dhana- bakkiam to issue cheque book.

M10 27-9-84|13-ll-86 Xerox copy of the ledger folio of Mrs, Dhanabakkiam S.B. Account No. 15553.

M il 13-11-86 Xerox copy of the receipt issued by Res- pondent in counterfoil for Rs. 5120.

M12 24-1-86 Xerox copy of the inland letter from Mr. M. Shamraj to Mrs. Dhanabakkiam.

Ml 4 Nil Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to to Mr,s.. Dhanabakkiam, -

M14 Nil Xerox copy qf the leter from Petitioner to Mrs. Dhanabakkiam.

M15 3-12-88 Jferox copy of .the complaint by Mrs. Dhanabakkiam to Respondent.

M16 10-12-86 Xerox copy of the cheque No. 264847 signed by the Petitioner—SB account N,o. 14.405 for Rs, 5120 without filling the column "Pay to".

M17 27-9-84 Xerox copy of the S.B. Account No. 15553—

pass book of Mrs. Dhanabakkiam.

Ml8 29-9-88 Xerox copy of the- charge sheet to the' Petitioner.

M19 4-1-89 Xerox £Opy of the enquiry proceedings. 5-1-89 14-3-89 12-4-89

M20 1-9-89 Xerox copy of the findings of Enquiry Officer M21 10-2-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner enclosing findings, proposed punish- ment and advising to appear for personal hearing on 26-2-90.

M22 5-10-90 Xerox cdny of the letter from F'";no"d?nt to Petitioner proposing punishment and advising to appear for personal hearing on 25-10-90.

M23 6-11-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Retnindent to the Petitioner informine personal hearing on 20-11-90.

M24 24-12-90 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent - •,,,dismissing the Petitioner from services of the bank.

M25 15-2-91 Xerox copy of the submission of the Peti- tioner.

M26 :2€^6-91 Xerox copy of the proceedings of the Ap- pelate Authority dl.smissinE.the appeal of Petitioner, New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O, 3326.—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, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the .employers in relation to the management of. Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2001.

[No. L-12012/196/93-]R(B-Il)l C. GANGADHARAN, Uoder Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN". Ill MATN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUH ROAD, YESHWANTHFUR, BANGALORE

Bangalore, the 11th October, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com., LI: B., Presiding Officer, CGlT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

C. R. No. 69/93

I PARTY

Smt. Varamahalaxmi G. Bhat. Behind New Sagar Engineering Woiki, Wesley House Compound, G P. Road. Sapar-577401, Shimojja District. (Advocate—M. Ramrao)

n PARTY

The Personnel Manager, Syndicate Bank, P. B. No. 1. Msnipal-576119. (Advocate—Ramesh Upadhyaya)

AWARD

t. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of subsection 2A of Section 10 of the Indus'rial Disnutes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No L-12C12|96|93-1R.(B-II) dated 13th December, 1993 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of Smt. Varamnhaiakchmi G. Bhat : that she was a, workman as deflned in the ID Act h correct ? If so, whether the action of the Manage- ment of Syndicate Bank in terminfitinR her,services w.e.f. 3-9-92 is Justified 7 What relief, if any, ii -SmVBhat entitled t o ?"

2. Tfec first party workman was working with the manage- ment and The manatfentemv of-Syndicate Ban* ierUrinated her u e r vW tftf.f. r-9-l?92 and therefore, Uidsuttial dwpOte is Taised.

3. Parties Appeared .and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

4. The case of the-first party workman h .as follows:

5. It is the case of the first party that she was tppointed as a P'gmy Agent by the Second Party in the Sagar Branch with effect from 14-06-1982. She worked continuously under the Second Party carrying •dut her duties and retpoturtbtlities t.o the best of her ability and to the entire satisfaction of the management.

6. It is ftoen from the record that an amendment was sought and certain allegations were added in the Claim Statement. By adding certain facts the .nature of dmif.s. of the first party workman are stated in detail in the Claim Statement.

7. It is the further case of the first party workman that her services were terminated abruptly w.e.f. 3-9-92 without any reasons and the action of the management is illegal. She filed many representations but nothing was done ly the man- agement. Industrial Dispute was raised and the conciliation was filed. The workman for these reasons and for many other reasons has prayed to pass award in her favour.

8. The ,case of the management'in brief is as follows :

9. The main contention of the management is that the first party was not doing any clerical work as contented by the workman. fhe was only an-Agent and not a staff, She was paid commisnpn and- no wages as- defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute is" not mmntainatile, She was- not a regular employee of the bank. She agreed under the agree- ment that in the event of any misconduct or on breach of any condition in tjje agreement the bank is at liberty to terminate the serVioes without assigning any reason. Service conditions were not appIic'aWi: to the first party wotknjan.

10. first party workman. Js not.an employee and there is , no master apd nervant reldttoiishin between the bank and herself. There were lot of complaints against her. There is no violation of provisions of the EDl Act, This tribunal has no jurisdiction.

• 11. It is seen from the records that on behalf of (he nwawise- ment MW1 was examined. Against this workman got examined horself. In view of the finding given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a detlsjoh reported in ATR 2001 SCW 749, there w no merit in the contention of the bank that the first party is not a Wcfrkman. The management has not proved the mfsconduct. The evidence of MW1 is not sufficient to prove the allegations.

12 KeoDinjr in mind the principles held in the defctelon'of the Hon'ble' Supreme Court of India, the first party • in a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The evidence of MW1 is ncjt helpful to the management to justify the action of terminating the first party from service. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the management has to regularise the services of the workman.

13. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that the action of the management is not correct and accor- dingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed. The management is+dlrected to take her as agent and reqularise the services in view of 'the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 11th October, 2001.)

V. N. KUtKAftNI, Prwldtog Officer7351 26-2-2001. On receipt ol notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter camo up before me for final hearing on 1 1-9-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other matciinl papers on record, upon perusing the written arguments fli^i on either sid; and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tri- bunal has passed (he following :—

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda in dismissing the services of Shri Ka. Panneer Selvam is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?" New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001

S.O. 3327.—Jn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

2 The facts of (he Industrial dispute between the parties

are briefly as follows :—

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hcrby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, Chennai, as shown in the .inne.yire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to (he management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-11-2001,

[No, L-12OI2|I96,96-TR(B-1I)J

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy,

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDTJSTR1AI 7RTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 4th October, 2001

PRESENT :

K. K;i,thikcyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 435|2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 43]97) fin t nc matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri Ka. Panneer Selvam and the Management of Bank of Baroda, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

Sri Ka. Panneer Selvam I Party|Workm;in.

AND

II Party/Management,

The Zonal Manager. Bank of Baroda, Chennai. APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : M|". R. Ganesan, and V. Oanga-

thnran. Advocates.

For the Management : Mr. K. S, V. Prasad, Advocate.

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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No, L-12012[196|96|IR(B-ll) dated 26-6-97.

The I Party]Workman Sri Ka, Panneer Selvam fherein- after referred to as Petitioner) was working as a Clerk in the Erode branch of the II Paity|Management Bank of Baroda (hereinafter refers to ns Respondent) at his request he was transferred from Erode branch to Pethampampatti branch in June, 1987. During 1988 he was transferred to Nambiyur branch. When the Petitioner was working in Pcthapnmpatti branch he has been assigned various clerical duties includ- ing savings bank[depositN|cash work|general lcdger[profit and loss hooks posting/assisting for periodical balancing various ledgers|books of the bank at this branch. At the time of tallying the savings bank ledger on 28-6-88, discrepancies like alterations, additions prefixing of figures were found in the ledger folio of bis S.B. Account No. 3158. The actual balance as on 28-6-88, in his S.B, Account was only Rs. 55,15 whereas he had prefixed the figure 10 before the balance of Rs. 55.15 so as to make the balance to appear as Rs. 1055.15. Based on this inflated balance due to the additions|altsrations made bv him subsequent withdrawals were permitted to him by the branch. On 30-4-88 he had actually withdrawn a sum of Rs. 830 from hii S.B. Account, whereas he has posted the debit for Rs 130 only. Thus he had created an excess of Rs. 700 in his Savings Bank Account. Even while posting the progressive of various S.B. ledger he had altered the ficurcs while posting Ihe balance[transactrons and he had thus tallied the books with the general ledger with the bogus figures. He had jotltxl the individual balances of S.B. Accounts from various savings hank ledgers as on 30-4-K8 and other dates during every subsequent month and tallied the books with alterations and additions as detailed above. For (he month of Julv, 1988 the n1 salarv advance of Rs. 600 paid (o him on 17-5-1988 wns shown to he ndiusted on 31-5-1988 bv '•"s makine fnke cred't cntrv in the cab hioV of (he d:iv. While writing the cash book without actual recovery from This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was take on file as ID No. 43|97. When the matter was pending enquiry In that Tribunal, Ihe Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased Jo order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Trl- ' buna for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, ihe -asc has been taken on file as I.D, No. 435(2001 "nil nolicps were sent to the counsel on -ecnrd on either side informing them abn.il (he transfer of this case to this Trihu- o-tl. with s dircelon- to , appear before this Tribunal on 3630 GI/2001—21735J THE GAZETTE OF JNDfA : J?EC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [?M% U—SEC. ,?(U)] the charges levelled against him except one charge relating to non-submission of LFC claim and, noh-refund of i.dvance taken in April, 1987. The Enquiry Officer after recording the Petitioner's confession found (the Petitioner guilty of 16 charges and ' as regards to other charges, the Enquiry Officer found, that the, explanation of the Petitioner as not satisfactory and found the Petitioner the guilty of the charges Thus, all the 17 charges came to beheld to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. As per the direction Of the Disciplinary Authoiity the Petitioner appeared for personal hearing and pleaded for any punishment other than the punishment of dismissal from Authority. Even before the Appellate Authority the Peti- scrvie'e. The' Pisciplmary Authority passed an order .dated 10-11-89 dismissing the petitioner f;pm bank's, service. There- after the Petitioner preferred fin appeal and on 25-1-90 the Petitioner was given a personal hearing by the Appellate tioner pleaded for mercy and for very sympathetic consi- deration of his appeal. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 21-2-90 rejected, the appeal. Thereafter the Petitioner has raised this dispute Capital punishment imposed on the Petitioner by ^gmissinjj Mm. ffpm tfiejeiryjice of the bank is disproportionate to the misconduct "committed by him is ex- cessive. Therefore,, the, Jjum'shmjpnt lias to. be interfered with by this Tribunal undr sfcflpn ,11A &t ,the.Industrial ,Qjjsputes Ad,,, 1#47. . The £|),ar$e' l^xclled against tf>e Petitioner were rninor, technical vjoIstUOfls 9nd,they arc,not .grave in nature and .are pardpnable .and in any .evpnt it , dpes jjot call for capital pUnijinincnt of.,di^mj^sal.from service. Such a punish- ment 'is. harjih and .arbitrary.', it is ptayed, this ,HpiTble Tri* buna] may be pleased to pass an award holding the non-emp- 16Vrnc'nf of peWIdnc'r ds not justified and direct the Res- pondentlManagerMnt to .reinstate the Petitioner in bank's •krvfiTe ^irt'-afl^tisequenflaT benefits.

10. In the Coupler Statement the II PartylM^nagement

^h! lj ' ^M &"?" tt!%al°, W~'WWf>*}{)fi >of JKavc flVc con"7353 applicable to this case also. So, it is inconect to state now qt the stage of nrgument that the procedure followed by the Res- pondent as wrong. The allegation of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was not even given tin opoilunity lo submit his explanation to the charge memorandum before enquiry is incorrect.

7354 THE GAZETTE OF TNDtA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AORAHAYANA 17, 192.3 [PART If—SEC. Mn)\

Unit the action of the Management of B.ink of Baroda in dismissing the services of Sri Ku. Pannor Selvam is le"al and jusliiicd ;:nd llii !>a!d w orkman is not entitled lo any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda in dismissinn Sri Ka. Panner Selvam from bank services is legal and justi- fied. The concerned workman is not entitled for any jelief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Ihc o|vn court on (his day the 4th October, 2001.)

K. KARTIIIK.HYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

Documents Marked :

On cither side : Nil.

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O. 3328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industria Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govcrnmcni hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal Bangalore as shown in the annexure it the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tc the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, whicl was received by the Central Government on 5-11-2001.

[No. L-12012|352|95-IR(B-ID;

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CEN'I RAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BANGALORE Dated : 24th October, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V.N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB, Presiding Offiecr.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C. R. NO. 197|97

T PARTY

Shri K. Srikanth, Ex, Pigmy Collector, C|o Bhat Newspaper Agent, Kamalapura P.O. Hospet Taluk, Bellary 583221 (President-U.P, Shert

II PARTY

The Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank (Z.O.), Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9 (A*dvocate-B.C. Prabhnkar)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vido order No. L-12012|352|95-IR B-II dated 10th February 1997 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri K. Srikanlh, Ex. Pigmy Collector, Syn- dicate Bunk, Hospet Branch is a workman under Sec. 2(S) of the ID Act, 1947? Tf so, whether the action of the management \>f Syndicate Bank in terminating his services w.e.f. 28-1-1997 is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. The first party was working with the Second Party us Pigmy Agent. He was terminated and therefuie, dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Coun- ter respectively.

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

5. First party was appointed as a Pigmy Agent in I-Tospft Branch. He worked for 9 years. He was collecting dc-posits from the customers as Pigmy Agent.

6. Tt is the further case of the first party that he could not remit the cash collections of Rs. 884 made on 24-1-19R7 due to family problem. He should have remitted Ihc amount on the next working day i.e 25-1-1987 find 2C-I-1987 was a national holiday and therefore he could remit the amount on 27-1-1987. The allegations made by the management nre not correct. He has not misused the cash collected by him Criminal complaint was lodged under Section 408.

7. Tt is the further case of the workman that he was ac- quitted. No memo or charge sheet was issued. He was not reinstated as Pigmy Agent and the action of (he management is not correct. He is a workman. First party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour,

fi. The case of the management in brief is as follows.

9. First party was taken as Pigmy Agent and he executed an agreement which was entered Into between him and the Second Party on 15-6-1978. The Second Party has no disci- plinary Control over the Pigmy Agents,

10. The main contention of the management is that the first party is not a Workman as defined under Tndastrinl Dispute Act.

11. It is the further case of the management that the first party did not deposit the amount collected by him on 24-1-1987 and therefore police Complaint was lodged and agreement was terminated on 28-1-1987. The action of the management is legal and justified. There is no master and servant relationship between the management and the first party. Management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

12. It is seen from the records that MWI is examined on behalf of the management. According to his evidence, first party has applied for the post of Pigmy Agent and he was given appointment order and first party accepted the terms and conditions of Ex. M3 the agreement, He has stated the details of duties of the Pigmy Agent,

13. He has further stated that on 24-1-1987 first party collected deposit and on 25-1-1987 he has not deposited the amount. The amount collected was Rs. S84. He further said that he was not,.deposited the amount on 27-1-1987 also; Manager.went,to ithi; house,Of the first party but he was not found.

14. He,hap further sta'tec'i (hat Ji;.sl party,has misappropriated Rs. RS't' lem'porririly and therefore, the management terminat- ed the contract.

7355

15. It is in Hie cross examination of MWl that first paity worked for 9 yeais. He also admits in his cross examination that the management has filed criminal case and the first party was acquitted. He admits in his cross examination that no charge sheet was issued and no departmental enquiry was held.

lfi. Against this workman gave evidence about appoint- ment letter and the agreement in detail. He has also s>-ud he was acquitted in a criminal case. He admits in his cross examination that he was required to deposit amount on 25-1-1987 but could not deposit. He had given the explana- tion that he has sent the amount through his father but the manager did not accept the same.

17. I have heard the arguments of the management and the representative of the first party. First party has giveu Written Arguments. I have read the same carefully.

18. Jn view of the decision of the Hon'ble Suprem Court of India reported in AIR 2001 SCW 749, there is no merit in the contention of the management that the first party is not a Workman.

19. Now the position is that the first party is a workman, 20. It is also said by the first party in the written argu- ments that the amount sent by the first party was not accep- ed by he Manager and has not misappropriate any collection. It is in evidence that a criminal case which was filed against the first party is ended in acquittal.

21. In view of the settled law as on today the first paity is a Workman. In the instant case criminal case filed against the first party ended in acquittal. The evidence of MWl is also not sufficient to prove that the workman has not depo- sited the amoujy on the next day of collection and he has committed misappropriation.

22. Documents filed by the management are not sufficient to prove ihe allegation of misappropriation.

23. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that the action of the management is not correct and accord- ingly [ proceed to puss the following order :

ORDER

The management is not justified in stopping the services of the first party workman' as Pigmy Agent, The management JS directed to take him as a Pigmy Agent and regularise his services keeping in mind the principles held in the decision of the Hon'bl Supreme Court of India. Accordingly reference is disposed 'off.

V, N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the J<)th November, 2001 S O. 3329.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 ((4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of ihc Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in ielation to ihe mairj;einnt if Indian Overseas Bank and their workman, which wais received hy the Central Government on 7-11-2001.

IJNo. L-l?01?|357|9.S-IR(B-[l)| C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TP1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNA[

Monday, the 17th September, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 42212001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal l.D. No. 13 97) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudicatioh under clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the In- dustrial Disputes Aet, 1947 (14 of 19471. between the Workman Sri I. Rajendran atxl the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai.")

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, : PartylClaimanr All India Overseas Bank Employees Union, Chennai. „,

AND

The General Manager, • TI PartyjManugemeiv. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai.

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant : IV |s. Aiyar & Dolia & C. R.

'."handrasekair, Advocates For the Management . Mr. S. Kanniah & K.

Selvaraj, Advocates The Govt, of India Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause yd) of sub-section (J) wind suh-seetion 2(A) or Section 10 of Industrial D'ispu'e Act, 1947 (\4 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No, L-l2012|357'0f>-IR(B-Ti; dated 10-2-97.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it wns taken on file as l.D. No. 13'97. When the matter was, pending enquiry in lhat Tribunal, the Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from lhat Tribunal to this Tiibunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, the case hris been taken on tile as l.D No 422! ?'001 nnd notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about ihe transfer oC7356 T H£ GAZfiTTfi Of INDIA : D£C. 8, 2001; AGRAHAYANA 17, 1&23 IPART it—SECr StiijJ uu ajjpoiUimcni tor nor enuosmg-copy or I-JK aa tiUVtin^muiii 'uy \ULI Ju laillil udiiy LUiidJiWiui Uuu-U

I - - J - *J • u u v ^ t ' i a a i g' L u i L ' - b aa U i i h n^ o i' o i ic u i. u i t fn this case to this Tribunal, with- a direction to appear befoie this Tribunal on 23-2-2001. On •receipt¹ of notice from this Tribunal, tin; counsel on either'side present with- their respective parses and prosecuted this case further.

When tlie matter came up before- me loi final hearing on 24-8-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement; the other material paipers on record, flic cral and documentary evidence let in on either side ai.d upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having ^ooci over till this- date for consi- deration, this Tribunal has passed the following:—

AWARD

7357

no control and : therefor, invoking para 17(a) or =Bipartite 'Settlement daifil 1G-4-89 is unreasonable, arbitrary and' due to- non-applicai-ion of mind on Ihe part,of the J Respondent] Rank. Hence, *he Hon'ble 'Tribunal may be pleased, to, pass an a ward, quashing the ordcti of the,:Respondent,'Bank deeming the workman as having been voluntarily retired from the blank service on -his own accord with effect from '19-44993 aad directing consequently the Respond^ntjBttnk to-reinstate the workman wi

3. The,averments in the Counter Statement of the

JI .PartfManagemcnt are briefly us follows :—

•Tine, concerned * workman tenure of service in the

, concerned Workman's services wjrc neither terminated nor retrenched, but on the other hand, it was a case •of voluntary cessation of work us provided under Clause XVH.of the Bipartite Settlement. By the time the representation was received on I2-10-IV93, the i bank had .already filled up the vacancy caused due:to the voluntary retirement. Besides, it is aho learnt that the workman after accepting tine impugned order of voluntary retirement, he has gainfully em- ployed elsewhere and therefoie, the question of pay- ing any compensation will not arise in ttis case. The various notices issued by the bank was acknowledged by the concarned workman then and there without delay. But he has failed to respond and report for duty as'claimed byfhc bank. All the conditions con- tained in the said clause was strictly followed before passing the order. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the ;laim of the Petitioner with cost.

4. When 'the case was taken up for enquiry, the concerned workman Sri I. Rajendnn and his wife Seethalakshmi have been examined as J party wit- nesses. On the side of the IT Party Management, one official of the bank has been examined. Documents as Ex. Wl tO'W8 and Ml to MS have been marked as exhibits on the respective sides. The learned counsel on either side have advanced 'heir respective arguments.

5. The point for my consideration is :—

"Whether the .action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank in treating the ab- sence of Shri I. Rajendran, Record Keepei-, Cumbum branch of Indian Overseas Bank as voluntary cessation of employment with effect from 19-4-1993 is justified or not ? Tf ,iTOt, to what relief Shri 1. Rajendran is entitled ?"

Point :—

This industrial dispute has been raised by the General Secretary, All India Overseas Bank Emplo- yees Union, Madras on behalf of the concerned workman Sri I. Rajendran, Record Keeper, Cumbani branch of the Respondent|Indian Overseas Bank. Be- camse of the absence for duty by the concerned work- man, the RespondentlBank Management took action for¹ the same and treated the absence of the said workman as voluntary cessation of employment and had passed an order dated 24-4-93 stating tfhat the 'concerned workman is -deemc j to have voluntarily retired from the bank services on his own accord w.e.f. 19-4-1993. The xerox copy of the order is Ex. W7. This order has been challenged by the Peti- tioner,Union as not legally tenahlc and it h;is to be quashed.

bank .was nut uRto ..the/mark. He .was very much irregular in attending the office and his attendance was .very.poor. In;tjic yepr 1992, the concerned ,work- ,man was ,,cffntjnuftuslynab,&?ntior a .period of about ,four.months causing,great,ipconv-iijence and disloca- tion of the business in the bank. During the relevant .period the.total,,number o£ days:in which the concer- ned workman was,absent from the work are 15 days in-March, 30.days.in April, 31, days in May, 30 days in June, .and 22 (days in July, 19y2. Though the •RespondentIBank is entitled lo, take severe action for the misconduct, the bank however, took a lenient view and the concerned .workman was only warned .orally, so as to enable him to correct himself. The concerned workman has not realised his misdeeds, but continued to behave.badly. 'The concerned work- man was again continuously absent from 14-9-92 without obtaining proper leave of absence before hand from the bank. Thus, .the bunk was once again put to inconvenience and dislocation of business. Later on, the-bank through their letter dated 22-12-92 called upon the concerned workman to report for duty. The said letter was acknowledged by him. but he failed to, rejoin duty. Under these circum- stances, the bank was left with no other alternative except to invoke the provisions contained in Clause XVH of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89. Accord- ingly, a notice ..dated 19-3-93 was Ksued to the concerned workman and called upon him to report for dulv. The said notice wa* also acknowledged, but ,he has failed to report for duty and therefore, the .impugned order wws passed treating liim FIS volun- tarily retired from the service of the bank on his own accord. '"The said action v>f the bank is under challenge before- this Tribunal, The mental illness pleaded bV the Petitioner Union may not be true nnd the s,ame has been made to eet over Ihe euilt. The police, complaint said to have b?vn Indeed nv trie workman's wife was an afterth'nioht ,n"d r.ooker1,np one. Jt is also a matter beyond th.? purview of the bank rules|provisions of the settlement and therefore, cannot be re|u-d. upon fir the .case of the Claimant as per barjk pijes. All the n'.ifijces pent bv the bnnk were received bv the concerned workman nnd he ]KIS deliberajtelv failed to ivnort for duiv fr"r the re.T*r"is best,known to hjm. The failure on the part "f tfie workman to.rewrt for dutv ,vvas del'bsrate and under thes^ rircu.mstfmoes. the.bank wns instifiVd in,invok- ing Clause XVJTYai of the BioarHre Settlement to is^ur the order of voljirjfarv rpfirfimcnt. Thf \\"irk- rriflin h-id no jp^ve to his credit aiirl at nnv event 'here js no '.ustifjenfipn in his pnrt ;ibs<"n|in? him

(\ The concerned workman T. Raiendran was Jastlv workinq pt Cumhum branch of Respondentl Management Indian Overseas Bank. It is alleged in thi? Counter Statement of the Respondent that the concerned workman's tenure of service in the bank was not upto the mark Pnd he was very much irre- gular in attending the office and his attendance was very penr Tt is further alleged in the Counter State- ment of the ResponnVn! that in the year 1992 the concerned workman was continuously absent for the7358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)] fni (wo or three years. He has also admitted in cross examination that the two letters dated 12-1D-93 and lft-ft-94 were written by him and they arc Ex, M5 and M6 respectively. He would further say that IK was fully cured when he wrote the letter under i\\. M5 and what he has stated in Ex. M6 about his regaining his memory is true and correct. The wife of the concerned workman who was examined as WW2, has admitted in he cross examination that her husband had not reported for duty since 14-9-92 as mentioned in Ex. Wl and she received the original of Hx, Wl and she lias sent reply under Ex. W5 for the letters she received under Ex. Wl and W2. She has also admitted that prior to Ex. W3 letter, she gave i\ police complaint about her missing husband, L:.\. \V> is Ih'j xerox copy of the letter written by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G2 Karimedii Police Station, Madurai, to Ihe Manager cf Indian Overseas Bank Brunch, Cumbum- She has also admitted that in th; complaint she preferred to the police she has not mentioned that her husband is suffering from mental depression. Though it is spoken to by WW1 and WW2 that during the period of absence of the con- r^rncd workman he was taking treatment for his nuntal illness, no document has been produced on the j-ide of The Petitioner :n this case it support of ilr.iL vers:nn. WW2 also has admitted in her cross examination thai she has not produced any document into Court in support of the treatment, her husband said to have laken for his mental illness during his peiiod or absence for duty, It is her admission further that to her knowledge, her husband had in- curred a loan to tiic lime of nearly Rs. 1,00,000. V.x M5 is the xerox copy of Ihe letter dated 12-9-93 sent by the concerned workman to the Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras. T.x. M6 is the \crox copy of the mercy petition dated 16-0-1994 sent by the concerned workman to the Managing D'ccrtor. Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai. In iriat mercy petition Ex. M6, it is stated by Ihe Petitioner himself that he was in- deh.ed heavJy in 1992 and his friends who gave him loan-; have defanied him in the presence of many and Mhen he came from the house on 14-9-92 as usual lor work one of his close friends met him on die way compelled him to pay back him the loan amount on that evening itself. When this was put to WW2 in the cross examination, she has admitted us correct. WW1, the concerned workman also admitted that Ex, M5 and M6 have been written by him He has further admitted what he has stated in P'x. M5 and M6 are true and correct and he has not filed any document to show that he took treatment for his mental illness. It is his evidence that he does not remember whether he had availed the credit facility and had drawn Rs. 200 on 5-12-92 from the Egmore branch and had drawn another Rs. 200 from Karaikudi branch on 31-12-92. A suggestion has been put to him in the cioss examination for his ad- mission thm Ex, W8 is the paper publication given abouL the death of his daughter Viji, whereby he was t^ked to return home and he denied the sugges- tion lhat he left the house in good mental health and that vvns whv Ex. \V8 paper publication was given for him tn ccme back home on seeing the death message of his daughter. He has further denied the suggestion lhat he had Dtcaded as mentally affected only for tin? puroc-e of this case and he was mentally alrioht. Ex. MS is the xerox copy of the letter dated period of about four monihs causing great inconven- ence and dislocation of th- business in the bank. The particulars of his absence from March, 1992 to July, 1992 have been stated as J5 days in March, 30 days in April, 31 days in May, 30 days in June and 22 day-, in July and that the bank took a lenient view and had warned the concerned workman orally so as to enable him to correct himself. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement that the concerned workman was again continuously absent from, 14th May, 19P2 without obtaining proper leave for ab- sence before hand from the Bank and that the con- cerned workman had failed to rejoin duty, though he hud acknowledged the receipt of letter dated 22-12-92 sent by the bank directing him to report lor duty. Jt is further aJlcged in the Counter State- ment that having no other alternative, except to in- voke the provisions coniaincd in Clause XVII at the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89, the Respondent] Management sent a notice dated 19-3-1993 to the concerned workmand and called upon him to report fur duty and that though he has acknowledged the receipt of that notice, he has failed to report for duty. All these averments have not been disputed by the Petitioner by filing any reply statement for the same. On the other hand, it is categorically admitt- ed in the Claim Statement itself that due to persona] and financial problems, the concerned workman was mentally aftected and hence he had drifted away due to his illness, from Cumbum. Ex. W4 is the xerox copy of the notice dated 19-3-93 issued by the Res- pondcnt|Bank, to the concerned workman. On the management side also the .xerox copy of the 19-3-93 notice has been marked as Ex. M l. As seen from Ex. W4 and Ml the said notice has been sent by the Respondent|Bank to Uie concerned workman under Hino different modes like Registered Post with ack- knowledgemcnt due, certificate of posting and ordi- nary post, ft is evident from Ex. W4 that it is the notice sent by the Respondent'Bank through Certifi- cate of Posting, Ex. M2 is the xerox copy of the returned postal cover for having sent Ex. Ml notice by Registered Post. In thai postal cover, there is a postal endorsement by the Postman as 'not claimed— returned'. All the three notices of H9-3-93 have been sent to the same address of the concerned workman at Madurai. Under those notices Ex. W4 and Ml the concerned workman was advised to report for duty within Ihirty days fiom the date of that letter. Admittedly the concerned workman has not complied with the advise given by Ihe Respondent! Management in those letters. The concerned workman has stated the reason for his absence for duty as his mental ill- ness, He has been examined as WW1 in this case. He has admitted in his evidence in chief that had not gone to the bank for work from 14-9-92. He would furiher say that since he was not in his sense, he had not given any leave letter for his absence and he left his house on 14-9-92 and be did not know where he had gone, It is his further evidence that his wife only told him thnt he was taken from Samayapuram in September, 1993 to Madurai. He would further sav that he regain ;d his memory only during Novem- ber, 1999 and after that he became completely alright. Tn the cross examination, he has admitted that he does not Temember for how many days in iy92 he had not irone for work to the bank. He would further admit that in 1994, when his wife was havinc a small shop in Somayapuram be was there7359 and mentioning the same in some of the letters, no acceptable evidence has been let in to prove that the concerned workman was actually sffered from mental depression, during his absence for duty. Under such circumstances, it is seen that only after taking proper steps as per the Bipartite Sutlement and having found tLat the concerned workman has not responded for the letters of the Respondent iBank for come back to work, action has been taken against the concerned workman to treat his absence as voluntary cessation- of service. Hence, under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank treating the absence of Sri I. Rajendran, Record Keeper of Cumbujn branch of Indian Oveiseas Bank as voluntary cessation of emp- loyment w c.f. 19-4-1993 is justified. Hence, the cpnc&rned woikinan is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

7. In Hie lesult, an Award is passed holding that the actjon, of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank treating the absence c f Sri I. Rajendran, Record Keeper of Cumbum Branch of Indian Overseas Bank as voluntary cessation cf employment w.e.f. 19-4-93 is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and prounounced by me in the open court on this day the 17th .September, 2001'.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For I Party¹ Claimant :

WW1.—.Shri T. Rejendran.

WW2.—Smt. R. SeethaJakshmL

For TT Party| Management :

MW1.—Sri V. C, Ramachandran.

DOCUMENTS MARKED .

For I Party|Claiman i

Ex. No Date Description

Wl 3-12-92—Xeiox copy of the letter from Management *o the wife of workman.

\V2 22-12-92—Xci ox copy of the letter from

management to Workman.

W3 11-11-92—Xerox copy of the letter from

the wife of workman to the Management,

W4 1,9-3-93—Xerox copy of the letter from

Management tc Workman.

\V5 22-3-93--Xerox copy of the letter from the wife of workman to the Management.

W6 12-4-93—Xerox copy of the letter from the wife of workman to the Management.

W7 24-4-93—Xerox copy of the letter from

Management to Workman.

W8 12-3-93—Extrac' of the advertisement pub-

lished in Dinamalar

W9 22-8-93—Xerox copy of the police report, 3-6-93 by the Senior Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, L-.gniore, Madias to Indian Overseas Bank Sulary and P.F. Section, Personnel Administrative Department by marking a copy to Industrial Relations Department, t x. M7 is the xerox, copy of the letter cated 2(i-5-l lJ';3 of the Deputy Chief Manager of iAdvance Sctiion of Indian Overseas Bank, Regional' Oflicf, karaikudi to the Indian Overseas Bank, Per- sonnel Section, Uegit^Val Oltice, Madurai. In both these letters the concerned officers have informed the personnel section about withdawral of Rs. 200 each on 542-92 and 31-12-92 from Egmore Branch and, Karaikudi Main Braneli rt specMvely by purchasing withdrawal slips lor Curnbam Branch S. B. Account No. 941h of Sri T. Rajendran Recqrd Keeper of Cum- bum Branch. As it is urged by the learned counsel for the Respondent|Bank that these two documents would clearly show that subsequent to 14-9-92, the concerned workman was mentally alert and alright and that was why he wi'hdrew the said amouflts from two branches of RespondtniiBank during his absence for duly as it is mentioned in Ex. W7 and W8. Coupled with these two documentary evidence, the admission made by the concerned workman in Ex. M6 itself, clearly thews that the concerned work- man was heavily indebted L-, it is admitted by his wife in t^et evidence and he absented for duty only to avoid facing the persons who were demanding riim to pay back the loan eAnolirrtr q&vahced to him and lie was rto't menially ttl to absent from, duty. If really nc -was m'cVrtrilly ill, his wife would not have rj;iven paper publication under Ex. W8 inforrniilg her hiiibunti to return back home fbr the death of their child Viji on seeing that advertisement. AU these things go to show that the averments of the Petitionner thai he was abstained from duty only because of his menial Illness caiinot be accepted as true. On the other hand, there is stirficierit evidence available on the side of the Respondent Management that the concerted workman .was mentally alright and that was why lie wBnt tb 'the branches of the bank at Egmore, Madras and Karaikudi to utilise the with- drawal facility and had drawn amounts in those branches of the bank, three months subsequent to his continuous absence for duty from 14-9-92. It is also trie atlrriissiori ttf the wife of the concerned work- man as WW2 that ifi the corHplaint she preferred to the police about the mi-sing of her husband, she has tlof mentioned that her husband was suffering from mental depression. Ex. W6 Is a xerox to^jy of the letter dated 12-4-93 wriiten by the wife of the con- cerned workman to ,t!ie Industrial Relation Depart- ment, Ttidiiin Overseas Bank Central Office, Madras. In that defter itself fhc has requested the Manage- ment to giw Met the death rbencfitg for her busjsand without ~ trfcoting his lone absence as a voluntary cessation < 7360 THF CiAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)l

For the II PairtylManagement :

Lx. No. Date Description

Ml 19-3-93.—Xerox copy of letter from the Industrial Relations Department to the work- man.

M2 Nil —Rtturned postal cover.

M3 24-4-93--Xerox copy of the letter from AGM id the workman.

M4 Nil —Xerox copy of the return- ed postal cover.

M5 12-10-93—Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

M6 16-6-94—Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

M7 26-5-93—Xerox copy of the letter from Re- gional Office, Kaiaikudi branch to the Per- sonnel Section, Regional Office, Madurai.

M8 3-6-93—Xerox copy of the letter from Indian Overseas Bank Egmore Branch to Personnel Administrative Department, Central Office.

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O. 3330.—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, Hyderabad as shown in the anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received bv the Central Government on 7-11-2001.

[No. L-12013|2|9S-TR(B-II)!

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tribunal-I.

Dated, 20th day of September, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 19 of 1999

BETWEEN

Indian Bank Employees Association, through the General Secretary, C/o Indian Bank Zonal Office, Liberty Cross Roads, Hyderubad-500029. Petitioner.

AND

The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank Zonal Office, 14th Floor, Liberty Praza, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. .Respondent.

APPEARANCES ;

Sri K. Ashok Rama Rao, Advocate for the Peti- tioner.

Sajrvasri P. R. Prasad, C.V.V. Prasad and N.A. Ramachander Murthy, Advocates for the Respondents.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its letter No. L-12013/2/98/IR(B-II), dt. 8-1-1999 in exercise of powers conferred in Clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred this dis- pute to this Tribunal for adjudication between the workmen and the Management on the issue mentioned in the schedule noted below :

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, Guntur in not absorbing the services of Shri D. Gouri Shankar, Casual Labour in the services of the management with conse- quential benefits is justifide ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" After the appearances of the parties, they filed their respective pleadings.

2. In brief the claim statement averments filed by the Employees Association are as under :

The aggrieved workman was working as Attender (Sub-Staff) Brodipet, Guntur who has long length of service. The Association has espoused the cause of the workman submittini a representation before the Assistant Labour Commisioner (Central), Hyderabad, seeking regularisation of the service of the workman in the respondent Bank, The conciliation proceedings took place on 22-10-1997 before the Conciliation Officer. However, the proceedings ended in failure nnd consequently, the report was submitted to the Govern- ment by the Labour Commissioner and on that the reference is made to this Tribunal for adjudication. The workman had to be regularised as Sub-staff in the Respondent Bank with all back waees and conse- quential benefits by virtue of Section 25B of the T.D. Act. The workman is qualified for the post of Sub- staff. So he made an apolication at Patnam Bazar Branch, Guntur for the Sub-staff cost and his offer was accepted and joined the job in Patnam Bazar Branch, Guntur and where he continuously worked till 17-1-1992. Thereafter, he was shifted to Brodipet Branch, Guntur on a permanent vacancy of Y. Vcnkateshwar Rao o.n 18-1-1992 and since then work- ing continuously and discharging duty. He worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year and till this date, he has been working there under Section 25 B of the I.D. Act. The Executive have engaged personal drivers to whom salaries are paid by the Executives. The driver of the Executive, who worked for fiye years, were absorbed by the Res- pondent Bank, whereas the service of the workman was not regularised which amounts to discrimination. Hence to grant the relief as prayed for.

3. The Respondent Management filed its counter and in brief the averments made are as under :

The workman was neither engaged nor authorised for such engagement. He was engaged to attend to mis- cellaneous work as and when there was necessity. In- fact, there was a ban imposed on cmpanelment of temporary sub-staff in the year 1990 itself, giving the guidelines for appointment of Sub-staff in the Bank. So the question of engagement of the workman from 22-8-1991 does not arise. As per the guidelines and on the basis of the seniority of the persons selection and kept in the panel of temporary sub-staff only, to be appointed. The requisition has to be sent to the Employment Exchange, calling for the list of eligible candidates. So also permission is to be obtained be- fore processing the selection. The three members con- sist of Regional Managei would make selection of such candidates and submit the merit list to the Appointing Authority. Whenever there is a leave vacancy or exigency of service, persons from tempo- rary sub-staff panel, on the basis of seniority, would be engaged by the Branch Manager. The Branch Manager has no authority to make any appointment. The Zonal Manager is the only competent person. Mere grounds of sympathy or the requisite qualifica- tions, do not warrant any consideration from granting the relief. Mere work for continuous period of 240 days purely on casual basis, does not entail the peti- tioner for absorption. The terms of BPS item Nos. 20.8 and 20.12 cannot be attributed to this case as the Petitioner is not in the temporary panel. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim.

4. The point for adjudication is whether the Peti- tioner is entitled to_be relief of regularisation of the services as prayed for ?

5. To substantiate the claim, the workman was examined himself as W.W.I and reiterated the facts contained in the claims statement by filing Exs. WJ to W12. Two more witnesses W.W.2 and W.W.3 exa- mined to corroborate him. W.W.2 working as Clerk in Brodipct Branch, deposed that W.W.I joined in the Branch in June, 1995 and worked ns Sub-staff attend- ing to sweeping of the premises and also to carry ledgers from one ta|ble to ai.other, WW3 is working as Sub-staff in Indian Bank, Medpalli, R. R. District. Prior to his absorption, be discharged the duties as Driver attending Ip the personal driving of the Exe- cutive in which post he joined in 1991. Thereafter he applied for regular service and in 1997 he was absorbed in the post,

73^1 6. The rebuttal evidence on the side of the Res- pondent, examined M.W. I to M.W.3 and through them Exs. Ml to M8 documents were filed.

7. M.W.I Senior Manager of Indian Bank, Brodipet, Guntur deposed that the appoint- ing authority of sub-staff is only Zonal Mana- ger. The worKman was never appointed as temporary sub-stall muchless any permission was obtained from the Zonal Manager. There is no vacancy in his Branch of Sub-staff post. WW1 have been engaged for mis- cellaneous work in the Branch and his wages are paid once in two days on the basis of daily wages. Only regular employees of the Bank will be members of the Employees Union. The Personal Drivers of the Executives were absorbed as per the settlement be- tween the union and the Management.

8. M.W.2 Senior Regional Officer, Indian Bank, Vijayawada deposed that as per the Staffing Pattern the sanctioned post of Sub-staff are three inclusive of Armed Guards, There are no other vacancies of sub-staff in the branch. When WW1 approached him, he engaged him for miscellaneous work on daily wage of Rs. 15.00 or so. Without any appointment order, any approval by the Regional Officer, Zonal OJlice the Branch Manager has no power to appoint. The proce- dure for appointing sub-stall which was taken from the temporary panel prepared on the basis of selection.

9. The grievance of the workman is that though he has been working as Attender (Sub-staff) from a long time in the respondent bank, Brodipet, Guntur his services have not been regularised, whereas the personal drivers of the executives who have worked for 5 years were absorbed by regularising their ser- vices by showing discrimination by the management. The management took the stand that the workman was engaged unofficially to attend to the miscellaneous work on payment of daily wage of Rs. 15 and as a matter of right he cannot seek relief to absorb or to regularise in the bank. It is contended that the ap- pointment of sub-staff is by selection for which there is a separate procedure which had to lie approved by the regional or zonal office and that the branch mana- ger of any branch cannot appoint any sub-staff and such persons who have no eligibility cannot claim for regular appointment under the rules and regulations.

10. From the evidence of MW2 it is clear that workman (WWJ) was engaged on daily wage of Rs. 15 unofficially so as to attend to the miscellane- ous work in the Bank and as per the stalling pattern the sanctioned strength of Sub-staff are only 3 in the Indian Bank, Vijayawada Branch and there is a sepa- rate procedure for appointing sub-staff who will be selected from the temporary panel of stall working in the vacancies.

11. As for as the merits o; the case are concerned the facts are crystal clear that the workman (WW1) was engaged unofficially on daily wage payment of Rs. 15 to attend to miscellaneous work in the bank and that no appointment orders was given to him. It is also clear from the evidence that there was given to him. It is also clear from the evidence that there was no vacancy of sub-sln(T or that he was posted in any leave vacancy. In respect of the appointments andnv TTTF GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I - t a c. 3(H)1 selection of sub-staff in the nationalised bank a pro- cedure has been laid down and it is being followed entering into an agreement with the union by entering into a bipartite settlement In spite of existence of bi- partite settlement, it is not known how the employee union could espouse the cause of workman herein, especially when he is not a temporary Worker of the respondent bank. After all he was engaged on daily wages and by such arrangement he cannot claim any rights j'or absorption or regularisatkm. Individually, the branch manager of a bank has no right'to appoint any person as sub-staff. There is nothing on record to show that at least the engagement of'Wwl on daily wages was informed to the Regional Officer or Zonai Office for approval. Unless any employee is working on temporary basis, he cannot claim for absorption and to see for regularisatioh of the services in the Banks. Merely because WW1 had attended, to the miscellaneous work in the respondent's bank he can- riot be considered as a temporary sub-staff so as to include him in the panel of temporary staff to make him eligible for the selection and to keep in the future Vacancies. The law is very much settled that even o person who was engaged on contract basis is also not entitled for continuation in service, where the services of such workman are discontinued still he does not amount to retrenchment attracting Section 25.(F) of J.D. Act. This aspect was made if clear in Himanshu Kumar Vidhiarthi vs, State of Bihar J998 2 LLJ page 1 Ji

12. On consideration of the factual and kgal aspects discussed above, the petitioner is not entitled for the -^CfvuoMt^^ relief.

J3. In the result, an award is passed dismissing the claim as not maintainable.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and given under my hand ana the seal of this Tribunal on this the 20th day of September, 2001.

&YED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribuiial-1 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE,

Witness Examined for Petitioner/Workman ^ WW1 D. Gowrisankar.

WW2 M. Raghavcndra Rao-

WW3 B. Mallesh,

Witness examined for Respondent/Management :

MWI K. Ramasubbarao.

MW2 V. Lakshminarasayya.

MW3 Ch. V. Ramana Murthy

Documents marked for the Petitioner :.

Ex. WI/I J-8-92—Xerox copy of the Bank's letter.

Ex. W2—Xerox copy biodata of WW1.

Ex. W3—Xerox copy of Enquiry.

Ex. W4—Nationality Certificate (xerox copy).

Ex. W5—Xerox copy of Caste Certificate, Ex. W6—Xerox copy of. T.C. oi WWI.

. Ex. W7—Letter to-the Union by WWI.

Ex. W8>—Representation of, the Union to ALC (C).

Ex. W9—Letter of the Union to ALC(C).

Ex. W10—Minutes of conciliation,

Ex. Wll—Statement of salary paid to WWI 22-8-91 to 30-4-99. " 'l "

Ex. W12/8-5-57—Xerox or order issued to Sri B. MaHcsh (Temp. Sida-staff.) Rsg-Regu- larisation.

Ex. Wl3/6-9-97—Letter addressed by the Senior Manager.

Documents marked for Respondent :

Ex. Ml/30-9-78—Xerox copy of instruction re- cruitment through Employment Exchange.' Ex. M2/16-8-90—Xerox copy oi instruction re- cruitment through Employment Exchange.

Ex. M374-3-83—Comprehensive instructions re- garding engagement of &"b-staiT in kave vacancies.

Ex, Mf|23-1-8H—Citcnlav to the Zonal Mana- ger by the (fan!; tygardip^ appointment of suty-staff,

Ex. M5/28-12-94—Circular of th*; bank regard- ing engagement of person ' during leave vacancies of permanent sub-staff," Ex. M6/26-5-95—Circular of the bank regarding engagement of person during leave vacan- cies of permanent sub-staff.

Ex. M7/5-7-94—Copy of the settlement.

ix. M8/16-2-98—Copy of the order in W.P, No. 189/98/97 batch.

7355

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O, 333:1.—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, Unngalo:e as ghowrj. ia the armexeure in, the Industrial Dispi: . be- tween the employers in. relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received Uy the Central Government on 5-1,1-2001.

[No. L-12()13/17/98-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated, 16th October, 2001

flB£S£NT :

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

C.R. No. 103/98

1 PARTY

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association. Ananda Rao Cirple, Bangalore-5 60009. (Advocate—A. Srinivasa Alse>

.11, BARTY

The Generaly Manager (P),

Syndicate Bank. Head Office. Manipal-576119. (Advocate—R. Upadhyaya)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No, L-12013/177 98/lR(B-Il) dated 14th December, 199R for adiudi- cation on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in imposing the punishment of re- duction in nusic pay by two stapes upon Shri Narayana Naik, Ex. Cashier and present Special Assistant, Tndi Branch ? And whe- ther the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in denying the workman back wages, continuity of service and other consequen- tial benefits after reinstating him. Tf EO, wlia¹ relief Shri B. Narayana Naik is entitled to ?" 2. The General Secretary of Syndicate B"nk Start Association has raised this dispute. Workman is still working with the Management. The management im- posed the punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages upon the workman. Ex. Cashier and now Special Assistant in the bank and denied the back wages and continuity of service and other consequen- tial benefits after reinstatement. Therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

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

4. The case of the h'rst party union is us follows :

5. The workman joined the Second Party Bank in the year 1970 at New Delhi and thereafter he was transferred to Bangalore in the year 1978. He worked in various branches at Bangalore. He was Ihe Secre- tary of the Association. Charge sheet was issued and- enquiry was held. The charge against the workman is that while working as Cashier at Balcpet! Bangalore Branch on 27-12-93 had handed over a sum of Rs. 7.20 lacs to Shri V. V. Nayak, Sub-Manager of the branch and that Shri V. V. Nayak, Sub-Manager handed over a sum of RR,. 50,000 to another cashier Shri B. G. Chandrashekar and thereafter Shri V. V. Nayak (landed back to the first party employee one cut note packet of Rs. 50 denomination amounting to Rs. 5000 for exchange but the first party employee did not replace/exchange that packet to Shri V. V. Nayak, the Sub-Manager, with the result there was shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 5000 in the hands of Shri V. V. Nayak, first party employee did not, return the packet of Rs. 5Q00 and that finally Shri V. V. Nayak had to make good the shortage to tally the cash for the day and that the first party employee has committed the gross misconduct of doing acts pre- judicial to the interest of the Bank vide clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

6. It is the further case of the first party union that the charges are not correct.

7. Regarding enquiry, it is said that the enquiry is not properly hekt and the finding of the Enquiry Offi- cer is not proper and no full opportunity was given to the workman. Details are given in paras S and 6 of the Claim Statement.

8. Tt is also said that the principles of Natural Justice were not complied with by the Enquiry Officer. No opportunity was given to defend the workman pro- perly. The workman was the General Secretary nnd therefore the workman was harassed. The union for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in its favpur.

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

10. The case of the management is that Shri B. Narayana Nayak, first party workman was working at Balcpct Branch and while working as Cashier on 27-12-1993, he handed over Rs. 7,20,000 to Shri V. V. Nayak, Sub-Manager for the purpose of remit- tance to Currency Chest. Out of this amount Shri V. V, Nnyak returned a packet of cut notes of Rs. 507364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DSC. 8, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PAWI I I — S E C. 3(ii)] denomination amounting to Rs. 5000 for exchange lo the lirst party. The first party did not replace/exchange thai paeKct to Shri V, V. Nayak and as a result there was a; shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 5000. In- spitc of repeated instructions the first party did not return the amount of Rs. 5000 to the Sub-Manager. Finally the Sub-Manager had to make good the short- age to tally the cash for the day. Workman commit- ted misconduct. Charge Sheet was issued and enquiry was held.

11. Regarding enquiry it is contended in detail by the management in paras 4, 6, 6 and 7 stating that the enquiry is fair and proper and full opportunity was given to the iirst party workman to defend himself and all the allegations are not correct.

12. Infact the misconduct committed by lhe first party workman is grave and deserves the punishment of dismissal but maximum leniency has been shown to the first party. The management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

13. It is seen from the records that the manage- ment examined MW1, Mr. K. B. Narihar Rao. None was present, for the first party and therefore arguments were heard. This tribunal by its order dated 28th June, 2001 held that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.

14. I have heard both sides in detail. I have per- used all the documents and considered the Written brief filed by the first party.

J5. Now that the DE is held as fair and proper, this tribunal has little discretion to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management wholly when minor punishment is imposed. There arc decisions of High Court of Karnataka to this effect and also the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court ol" India. 16, Keeping in mind this we will have to see whe- ther this Tribunal under Section 11A after holding that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper can invoke the provisions of Section 11A of the Indus- trial Dispute Act. In the written arguments the first putty union has again said in so many terms that the enquiry is not correct and the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. Nothing is pointed out from the material before me to say that the finding o£ the enquiry officer is perverse.

L7. It was argued by the representative of the work- man that according to the document No. 93 of the enquiry, notes amounting to Rs. 7,20,000 were issued, Even according to the document at Page No. 97, a sum of Rs. 7,20,000 was received and the figures of that day tallied and therefore, the contention of the management that the workman gave short amount to the manager is not correct.

18. There is no merit in the arguments of the re- presentative of the first party because Shri V. V. Nayak gave a packet of RK. SO denomination for re- placement of a cut note around 2 PM on 27-L2-J993 to first party workman and that it was never return- ed by the first party workman back to Shri V. V. Nayak, This contention of the management is correct on the basis of the material before roc. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse.

19. I have considered all the documents carefully. Much was argued about document MEX. 8 and MEX. II by the first party representative. But in my opin- ion the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the material before me has rightly come to the conclusion, and the finding is based on the evidence.

20. T have given my best consideration to the docu- ments referred by the workman and ledger book and I am of the opinion that the misconduct is proved.

21. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the management that during the enquiry MEX 8 was not relied by the management at all.

22. Taking all this into consideration 1 am of the opinion that there are no good grounds to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management that too in the instant case minor punishment is imposed for proved misconduct. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 16th October, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O. 3332.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes lhe award of the Central Government Tndustiral Tribnual, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation lo the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2001.

[No. L-17O12|12|93-IR(B-IT)1 C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

7365

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

HI MAIN, III CROSS, IT PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 5th November, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kuikarni, B.COM, LLB, Presiding Officer. CGIT-cunvLabour Court, Bangalore.

C.R. No. W|93

I PARTY

Shri K. Lokanath Raju, No. 162, V. Main Road. IT Stage, II Phase, Mahal akshmipu ram, BangaIore-560 08fi (Secretary-L.S.L. Sastry).

II PARTY

The Sr. Div. Manager, LIC of Tndia (Div. Office), Personnel Department, J. C. Road, Bangalore-560 009. (Advocate-M. L. Vishveswariah)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercisini; the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No, L-17O12I12|93- IR (B-in dated 26th August, 1993 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action taken by the management of LIC of India in terminating the services of Shri Lokanath Raiu is Justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. The First Pairty was working as Sub Staff on daily wa^es. He was terminated and therefore In- dustrial Dispute is raised.

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

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

5. It is the case of the first party that he was appointed in Iplnuary 19S6 as an Attcnder in the office of the Second Partv in the pav scale of Rs. 450, Tt is true that the lob was purely on tempnrary basis on mon*b1v rntc. Hs has MISO ftrvted about the working hours and duties in the Claim Statement.

7. It is the further case of ilie rirst party that he has given consolidated wages of Rs. 450 per month. First party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour,

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

9. It is the case of the management that the first party was engaged by the second Party as a! Coolie intermitently to attend the casual jobs in one of its branch office at Bangalore between 2-5-86 to 9-6-88. His services were availed as and when there was work. He was paid coolie on the day on which he used to work. The action of the management is correct. There is no merit in the dispute raised bv the first party. Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed td reject the reference.

10. I have heard both sides in detail and perused the written arguments carefully,

11. It is seen from ihe records that management examined one Mr. M. S. Sreenivasan. Administrative Officer, His evidence is that the first party was engaged as Coolie from May 1986 to June 1988 and he was appointed intermittently. He was not doinp coolie work. Payments were made \>y taking signature on the vou- chers. Twenty Eight vouchers are produced by the management.

12. He has further stated that for recruitment of Class IV regular appointment, there are recruitment rules and the rules are produced. He is crpss exa- mined at length.

13. MW1 states in his cross examination that they have employed persons who have fulfilled the condi- tions laid down at page 4 of Ex. M31.

14. T have carefully considered Ex. M31. I have also carefully perused¹ the recruitmen: rules, Tt is in the cross examination of MW1 that the Hon'ble Supi- rcme Court advised the management to implement the compromise entered between the union amd the mana- gement.

15. It is also said by MW1 that a circular was issued on 14-3-89 and it is Ex, M31,

16. Against this we have the eviendce of workman and according to his evidence he says that he joined the services in the year 1986 as a Sub Staff. It is in evidence that first party worked from 1986 to 1988, He has given representations,

7366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001 AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3('ii)]

18. In view of the long service of the first party arid the fact that some of the workmen are regula- rised, the aption of the management so¹ far -as first party is concerned is no proper. MW1 has categori- cally stated in his cross examination that they have employed persons who fulfilled conditions laid down at page 4 of Ex. M31

10. In view of evidence and documents I am of the opinion that the first party workman can be regularise if he fulfils the necessary qualifications and rules permit to do so. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following Order.

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. T he management is directed to reinstate the first party as sub staff if he fulfils the required qualifications and guidelines/ permit, he may be regularised. No other benefits are given.

(Dictated to' PA transcribed bv her corrected and signed by me on 5th November 2001).

V. N. KULKARNT, PVesiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 SO. 3333. rn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 19471, the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal Bangalore, as shown in the annexnre in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Corporation Batik and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2001.

[No. L-12O12I157]96-IR(B-II))

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

III MAIN TIT CROSS II PHASE. TUMKUR ROAD. ' YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated • 5th November, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'bJe Shri V. N. Kuikarni, B.Com., LLB.. Presiding Officer.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

CR. No. 230|97

I PARTY

II PARTY R Srinivasa, The General Manager, Cln Kunnr'ppa, Industrial Relations. No. 27, Cubbonpet, Corporation Bank, l?t Cms-,, Head Office, B:.n=alore 560002 • M. T. Road. i Advocate—Mohamed Nasiruddin) P. B. No. 83. Mangalore-575001

(Advocate—Prncleen S. Sawkari

AWARD

1 The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has refeired this dispute vid- oder No. L-12012|157|96|ttUB-n) dated 16th May. J997 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

'Whether the management of Corporation Bank is justi- fied in dismissing Shri R. Srinivasa, Peon, Bangalore City Branch from Service w.e.f. 28-9-1993 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. Fust party war, working with the Second Party. First party committed misconduct. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held against the first party. On the basis of the enquiry report fW party was dismissed from service and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

3. Part'Vs anp"fired and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

A. The case of the fir^t party in brief is as follows :

5. First party has ioined the services of the second ,par"v as an Att^nder on 6-6-1986 and he was confirmed in the month of December. 1986. He was placed under suspension by an ordf"r dated 22-1-1992. The alleeations made against him are not correct. He has not committed any misconduct.

6. Regarding enquiry so many contentions are taken un bv the first party and has submitted (hat .the .enquiry is ,not fair and proper and full opportunity was not given to him.

7. It is the further case of the first party that the punish- ment is not correct.

8. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass the award in his favour

9 The c"se of the Second Party in brief is as follows :

10 Tt is true that the first party was working as a Peon in the Bank. He was placed under suspension by the competent authority because he had clandestinely removed Rs. lO.Ofi from -the ca^'i handled by Mrs Chandra Prabha and subse- quently remained absent from duty unauthbrisedly.

11. On 21-10-91, the first party was attached to the Cash Department and he was required to stitch cash packets. Smt Chandra Prabha was workinc in the said branch and the fi'^t nnrty clandestinely removed a Surfl of Rs. 10,000' - from the fish handled bv Smt. Chandra Prabha arid .reitia'ned absent. The explanation given by the first party is m correct.

12. Residing enquiry it is said in so manv terms that the "•amp is fair and nroper and full opportunity was given to tfi" fir<-t oartv *o defend himself and a'11 the allegation; TIW'° by tftf first party are not correct. Second Party for thp c rpn^ons n^d "for "ome other reasons has nray?.i fi reict the reference.

13 lf is cepn from the records that 1 he manaeement has examined MW1 to prove that the domestic enquiry is fair and rropT MW1 has aiven detailed :v;dence rt-yjirdin? the enniiirv condi.ciad bv him From the evidence of MW1 il is clear that,very systematically enquiry is conducted.

14 Ainins* this workman eot examined himself and has stated th'U enquiry conducted is not correct and full opportu- nity v."is not given to him to defend himself.

7367

15. It is seen from the, records that this tribunal by its order dated 24th August, 2001 has held that the DE is fair iind' prnpci. I ha\j heard both sides in detail and I have read Ihe dccNuns £ivi*n by the fust paiLv.

1 o. It i.s seen (hat in the Writlcn Arguments, first party has repi'alcdly snid fo ninny things in respect of enquiry and. sub- mitted IhiJt the enquiry is not fair ;ind proper. The fact that ttn're is ;i finding that the DF is fair and proper will not help th' lip;i n^rly now again to challenging the DE.

New Delhi, the 21 si November, 2001 17. Now in view of (he finding on Domestic Enquiry the

first party has to convince this tribunal that the finding of th'¹ enquiry officer is perverse and the report of the enquirv officer is not based on the evidence adduced before him.

S.O. 3334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ccultvtl Government hereby publishes the award of Industrial Tribunal,Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bunk and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

18. I have carefully nerused the evidence and proceedings of thr enquiry. According to the management, he removed Rs. M'OIKV- iind miMippiopriaied the amount. The Enquiry Oflicfr considered the entire evidence and the documents re- lied bv the management and has come lo correct conclusion and there is nothing to say I hat the finding is perverse,

[No. L-12012|158|99'-lR(B.II)l7368 THE GAZETTE OF INDiA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I - S EC 3(ii)] Act, 1947 {14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri M. A. Kubcsan and the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai.)

BETWEEN

Tfte General Secretary, , , I Party [Claimant Indian Bank Staff Union, Chennai

AND

The General Manager, . . II Party[Manage- Jndian Bank, merit Chennai,

APPEARANCES :

For the Claimant.—D. Geetfia, L. Shika and

E. Porselvi, Advocates.

For the Mmnageraent.—M|s. Aiyar and Dolia,

Advocates.

The Government, of India, Ministry af Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-sectioa 2

*"* New Delhi, the 21st November, 2001

This reference has keen made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on lilt; as T.D. No. 109J96. Wh'en the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Lafeoar was pteaaed to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribu- nal for adjudication. On receipi of records from that Tribunal, the case has beni taken on file as I.D. No. 41412001 and notices were sent to the counsel on fecxMtl 1 a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 23-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on cither side present -with their respectivt parties and prosecuted this case further.

S.O. 3335.—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 (Labour Court, Chennai as shown in tht annexure in the Indusnial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-1 1-2001.

[No- L-U2O12|176|95-IR(B.II)]

C, GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

When the natter came up before me for final hear- ing on 14^-2001, vpm perusing; the Claim State- ment, Counter SUtaaicoi, the other material papers oa necond, the docwwenlwy "videnoe let m on either ^ide and open hearing &\t arguments advanced by the learned counsel un either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed "he fallowing :—

BEFORE THE CENTRAI GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1HUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

AWARD COURT, CHENNAI

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above Thursday the l l ih October. 2001

order <*f reference by t-he Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows ;—

PRESENT :

K. KarLhikeyun, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Dispute No. 414)2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 1"9|96)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under dausc (d) of s>ub-sec*for_ (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

'kWbe4ber the tcfoa of the Mantgement of Indian Bank in refusing to refix the pay of Sri M. A. BubcAan more than his junior Shri S. R. Raraachapdran on his pro- motion as Clerk re legal and justified 1 If not, Ui what relief Hif conwnic^ w*wiman is entitled ?"7369 2. The facts of this industrial dispute are briefly as

follows :—

The Indian Bank staff union has raised this Indus- trial Dispute espousing the cause of workman Sri M. A. Rubssan stating that the action of management of Indian Bank in refusing io reftx the pay of Sri M. A. Rubesan more than his junior Sri S. R. Rama- chandran on his promotion as clerk is illegal and unjustified.

The facts of this case are briefly as follows :—

in the clerical scale of pay. Mr. Rubesan was draw- ing a basic pay of Rs. 300 on promotion in the sub- st"tf cadre. Therefore a sum of Rs. 75 to be added which wiU be Rs. 375 and then refixation has to be done. As per the chart, Rs. 375 will be fitted either in Rs. 36b or Rs. 378 as Rs. 375 was not figures in the chart. For both Rs. 366 and Rs. 378 as basic pay as sub-slafl, I he basic pay as clerk will be Rs. 455 instead of Rs. 365 fitted by the Personnel Department. To this, Rs. 455 another three usual increments on the date of promotion, if added, then his eligible icviscd basic pay will be Rs. 545. For this revised basic pay of Rs. 545 the corresponding basic pay as per IV Bipartite Settlement will be Rs. 345. One Mr. S. R. Ramaehandran Sr. No. 2274i has been appointed in the bank in December, 1975 and was promoted as Cleric on 17-8-84 and his basic salary has been refixed as Rs. 430 against his last basic of Rs. 310 drawn as a sub-staff and as per IV Bipartite Settlement his basic has been re- vised as Rs. 685 from the corresponding basic pay of Rs. 430. A compaiison between Mr. Rubesan and Mr. S. R. Rumachandrjii both were promoted from sub-staff to clerical cadre, Mr, Rubesan who was promoted in December, 1982 as clerk-cum-shroff was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 615 against Rs. 300 as, sub-staff in the IV Bipartite Settlement while Mr. S. R. Ramachandran who was junior to Mr. Rube- san and promoted on a much later year 1984 had been drawing a basic pay of Rs. 685. This is case wheic the senior, M. A. Rubesan senior by date of appointment as sub-staff, by the date of promotion of clerk is getting veiy less salary, to the extent of two increments, when compared to the junior Mr. S. R. Ramachandran who is junior by date of ap- pointment as sub-staff by date of confirmation as regular sub-staft and by date of promotion as Clerk. Both Mr. Rubesan and Mr. S. R. Ramachandran are working as Clerk'Shroff in the same West Mamba- latn branch of Indian Ban];, Hence, it is prayed the Hon'bte Tribunal to direct the Management of Indian Bank to remove the rnomaly in the fitment of salary of Mr, Rubesan on promotion as clerk,

3. The point for my consideration is :—

"Whether the action ol the Management of Indtaji Brink in refusing to rcfix the pay of Sri M. A. Rubesr.n more than his junior Shri S. R. Ramachandran on his promotion as Clerk is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is en- titled ?-'

Sri M. A. Rubesam joined the Respondent Bank| Indian Bank (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) of the Alw"rpet bieanch cm 16-1-75 as sub-staff. He got promoted to clerical cadre on 10-12-82 and join- ed as clerk | shroff on promotion at West Mambalam branch of the RespomlentfBank. At the time of pro- motfen he was drawing a bask pay of Rs. 300 as a sab-staff and correspondingly he was fixed with a basic pay of Rs. 325 as per the then policy in vogue in Indian Bank. The Management in its reply dated 28-3-94 addressed to the Petitioner union in response to the dfepwte have narrated the modification of the 197S promotion poftey and have detailed the fitment calculations m the new promotion poKcy settlement dated 21-5-83. The Management have themselves agreed that when the settlement dated 21-5-83 was implemented, it came to their notkc that some of the promotees under the settlement dated 16-12-78 were getting lower salalry than the prortotees of 21-5-83 settlement. In order to narrow down the difference m the salary of promotees prior to 1983, it was agreed by the bank to reduce the difference to some extent and accordingly, had reviewed the ease under settlement dated 16-12-78. They have made refhatkm w.e.f. 1-1-86 and inform^ cd the same vide cirewter dated 11-1-86. Mr. Rube- san was promoted under the promotion policy dated 16-12-78 and his fitment was refixed as per the cir- cular df.tcd 11-1-86. The aim of the circular was either to remove or minimise the difference in salary of promotees of 1978 policy and 19S3 policy. But while refixing the salary of Mr. R"besanr the Person- nel Department lias made calculation mistake and instead of removing the anomalies aBowed to assume larger proportion. The basic pay which the sub- staff was drawing as an the date of promotion, a sum of Rs. 75 will be added and thereafter the pro- motecF will be fitted in the corresponding stage in the clerical scale of pay. While refixmg the salary of M. A. "Rubesan, tfie Management has calculated by their letter dated 15-U-9O as under :—

Basic drawn at the time of promo-

Point :—

tion to Clerical cadvc : Rs. 300

Notional basic pay on fitment in

Clerical cadre under 3rd Bi- partite Settlement. As per fitment chart.

Add number of increment? the emp-

loyee Earned upto 31-12-95 : Rs. 455

It is admitted Mr. Rubesan, the workman in the Respondent]Management Indian Bank who has join- ed the services as sub-staff at Alwarpet branch got promoted to clerical cadre on 10-12-82 and that at the time of his promotion he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 300 as. sub-staff and correspondingly he was fixed in the basic pay of Rs, 325 as per the then policy in vogue in Indian Bank. It is also admitted that the new promotion policy settlement dated 21-5-1983 was replaced by earlier promotion policy settlement dated 16-12-78 modified by the Respon- dent I Management. It is also not disputed that when the settlement tinted 21-5-83 was implemented by the RespondeiitlManageinent. It came to the notice of that some of the promotees under the settlement Correspondingly they have refixed the basic pay in the IV Bipartite Settlement AS Rs. 730 which the Peiitioner Union have clearly said as anomaly and a sum of Rs. 75 will have to be added and thereafter the promotee will be fitted in the corresponding stage7370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001 / AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C ^ U )] in the Counter Statement it-is seen that Rs. 75 has net beer, added to the basic pay of the sub-stall' drawn on the date of his promotion. From this it is seen what that has been calculated by the manage- ment in relixing ihe salary of Mr. Rubesan is only a mistaken calculation as mentioned in the Claim State- ment Adding Rs. 75 as "per the circular to the basic pay of Rs. 300 drawn by the workman Sri Rubesan at the time of his promotion to clerical cadre, it comes to Rs. 375. Rs. 375 has been sought to fit in the fitment table it mutt be Rs. 366 or Rs, 378. In that case, both are equivalent to Rs. 455. Along with that Rs. 455 three increments of the employee upto 21-12-85 has to be added, it comes to Rs. 545, and the corresponding basic pay in the 4th Bipartite Settlement for the same is Rs. 875 and not as mentioned by the Respondent|Management in their Counter Statement as Rs. 730. From this it is seen that the clarification given in the Counter Statement of the Respondent (Management is not as per the cir- cular under Ex. M3.

4. It is stated in the Claim Statement that the concerned employee Mr. Rubesan wfio was promot- ' ed from sub-stall ; to clerical cadre in December, 19S2 was drawing u basic pay of Rs. 650. In the 4th Bipartite Settlement while Mr. S. R. Ramachand- ran, who was junior to Mr. Rubesan and pro- moted in much later year in 1984 had been drawing a basic pay of Rs. 685. From this it is seen that the senior Mr. Rubesan by date of appointment as sub-stalf -by dnte of piomotion as clerk is getting very less salary to the extent of two increments when compared to the junior Mr. S. R. Ramaehandran who is junior by date of appointment as sub-stall by date of confirmation as regular sub-staff and the date of promotion as clerk. It is also not disputed that both Rubesan and S. R. Ramachandran are work- ing as Clerk[Shroff in the same West Mambalam branch- of Indian Bank. From this it is seen that there exists anomaly in reflation of salary from 1-1-86-to Mr. M. A. Rubesan who is drawing lesser salary than his junior. From this it is evidence, that the action of the Management of Indiun Bank in refusing to rch'x the pay of Sri M, A. Rubesan more than his junior Srr S. R. Ramachandran on his pro- motion as Clerk is illegal and unjustified. Hence, the Petitioner Union is right in claiming the relief as prayed for in the Claim Statement. Therefore, the concerned workman Sri M, A. Rubesan is entitled to have his pay refi\ed us it is prayed by the I Party[ Union. Thus, the-point L answered accordingly.

5. In the result, an Award is passed holding 'that the action of the Management of Indian Bank in re- fusing to refix the pay of Sri M. A. Rubesan more than his junior Sri S, R, Ramachandran on his pro- mot'on as Clerk is not legal and justified. Hence, Ihe Respondent|Management is directed to fit the workman Sri M. A, Rubesan the stage 14 and 15 as per the formula in Circular dated 11-1'-1986 on pro- motion as Clerk on 10-12-1982 and to grant him the consequential relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 11th October, 2001.) dated I6-J2-78 were getting lower salary than the prumoLces of 21-5 33 settlement. Accordingly, the Respondent. Management reviewed the case under settlement dated 16- J 2-78. Then they have made relixation with elVect from 1-1-86 and informed the name by their Circular dated l'l-l-8o. Mr. Rubesan vsas promoted under the promotion policy dated 16-12-78. It is not disputed that while refixing the salary of Mr. Rubesan the management has calculat- ed the basic pay drawn aL the time of promotion to clerical cadre by Mr. Rubtsan as Rs. 300. The notional basic pay lor fitment in clerical cadre at the 3rd Bipartite Settlement a? per the fitment chart is Rs, 385. Having earned the number of increments, the employee earned npto 31-12-95 it comes to Rs. 455. Correspondingly, the management had rclixcd the basic pay in the 4th Bipartite Settlement as Rs. 730 which is according to the Petitioner Union is in anomaly, It is the contention of the Petitioner Union th Lit as per Circular a sum of Rs. 75 will have to be added and thereafter the promotee will be fitted in the corresponding stage in the clerical scale of pay. Therefeie, for"Mr. Rubesan who was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 300 on promotion in the sub-stall' cadre, a sum of Rs. 75 to be added to this which will be Rs. 375 and that relixation has to be done as per the fitment chart Rs. 375 will be fitted either in Rs. 366 or Rs. 378 as Rs. 375 was not figured in the chart. As per the chart for both Rs. 366 and Rs. 378 as b::sic pay as substaff, the basic pay as clerk wil] be Rs. 455 instead of Rs. 385 fitted by the Personnel Impairment. To this Rs. 455 another three usual increments on the date of promotion if added, then his eligible revised basic pay will be Re. 545. Tor this revised basic pay of Rs. 545 the corresponding basic pay as per the 4th Bipartite Settlement will be Rs. 875. The xerox copy of the promotion policy settlement dated 16-12-78 is Ex, MJ. E.x. M2 is the xerox copy of the promo- tion policy settlement dated 21-5-83. Ex. M3 is the xerox of the circular issued by the Respondent) Management dated 11-1-86. In that circular the fitment table has been given as annexure. It is clear- ly mentioned in the Circular that to the basic pay which the .sub-stuff was drawing as on the date of promotion, a sum of Rs. 75 if they added and there- after the promotee will be fitted in the corresponding stage in the clerical scale of pay as mentioned below in the fitment table . In page 4 of the Claim State- ment it is clearly stated b\ the Petitioner Union that as per the circular of the Respondent (Management dated 1 1-1-86 a sum of Rs. 75 has not been added to the basic pay of the sub-staff Mr. Rubesan at the time of his promotion to clerical cadre. And there- after the promotee will have to be fitted in the cor- responding stage in Ihe clerical scale of pay. As per the circular, us there is nu corresponding stage for Es, 375 he has to be Mud either at Rs. 366 or Rs. 378 in both case, which ii equivalent to Rs. 455. In the Counter Statement page 2, particulars have been given with regard to rtfixation done in the case of the Petitioner. From those particulars it is seen that the provision made in the circular under Ex. M3 has not been followed. As per that circular, to the basic pay which the sub-stair was drawing as on the date of promotion, a sum of Rs. 75 will be add- ed and thereafter the promotee will be fitted in the corresponding stage in the clerical scale of pay as mentioned in that fitment table. Particulars given

K, KARIHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer7371 Witnesses Examined :

Oil culier s,i(.ii' —None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For F Party (Claimant ,

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 10-12-82—Xerox copy of the proniciioji order issued by the Respondent to the con- cerned vvorkinun.

W2 17-1-80—Xerox copy of the letter from Zonal Office, Indian Bank to Indian Bank, Wc^t Marnbalam Branch.

W3 5-3-86.—Xerox copy of the letter from Assistant General Manager to Sri M. A. Rubcsan.

W4 2-4-86.—Xerox copy of the letter from Sr. Manager, West Mambalam branch to Indian Bank, Co. Personnel Department, Chennai.

W5 27-11-90—Xerox copy of the letter from Sri M. A. Rubcsan to the Assistant Gene- ral Manager, Central Office.

WC> 17-4-93.—Xerox copy of the letter from Sri M. A. Rubesan to ths Assistant General Manager, General Office.

\V7 16-6-93—Xerox copy of the letter from the General Secretary, Indian Bank Staff Union to the Assistant General Manager (PL).

For the II Paity(Management :

E\ No. Date Description

Ml 16-12-78—Xevox copy of the Promotion Policy Settlement.

M2 21-5-S3.—Xerox eppj of the Promotion Policy Settlement, .

M3 1 l-J-86—Xercx copy of the circular issued by the bank Regarding fitment of salary on promotion from Sub-staff in Clerical cadre.

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2001 S.O. 3336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1-! of 1047), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial TribunaljLabour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canaia Bank and their work- mam, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

|No. L-12012j216|98-IR(B, II)] C, GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 8'h October, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan.—Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 92(2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No.

52199)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Mib-seetion (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman £ii S. Sankar and the Management of Canara Bank, Chennai. 1

BETWEEN

Sri S. Sunk:ir.

. . 1 PartyjWorkman

AND

The Deputy General Managei, . . II Party, Managc- Canara Bank, ment Chennai.

^APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.—Mjs. Balan Haridas and R. Kamatchi Sinidarcsan, Advoactcs.

For the Management—Mjs. T. R, Sathiya Mohan, Advocate.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012|21b,9K|IR- (B-TI) dated 24-2-1999|9-3-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil NLUUI Slate Industrial Tribunal where it was taken on file JS I.D. No. 52J99. Wlien the matter was pending enquiry in lhat Tribunal, the Government o1 India, Minimiry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this ea-e fiom that Tribunal to this Tri- bu'ial for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on the file as I D. No. 92 2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them ;,bout (lie transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before- this Tribunal on 30-1-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribuial,7372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 17. 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(.ii)J the counsel on either side ptescnt with their respec- tive parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the maitler cauic up before me for final hearing on 12-9-20OI, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on re- cord, the documentary evident* let in on the side of the II Paity|Management and upon hearing the argu- ments advanced by the Jcarned counsel on cither side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the follow- ing :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above oider of relerence hy the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the termination of the services of Sri S. Sankar, Daily Wager by the Management of Canara Bsmk is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. The facts of this industrial dispute in brief are

as follows :—

branch to credit the said amount of Rs. 60,000 immediately since they have not drawn the same on 27-2-1992 from their account. The Respondent! Bank on receipt of such a lettei on immediate veri- fication found that a bearer cheque No. 970501 dated 26-2-92 for a sura of Rs. 60,000 was purportedly issued by the current account party M|s. Vijay Mar- keting, operated by tire lettei of authority holder Sri P. Runganaihan' in favoui of Sri B. &. Bandari, endorsed by the payee and further endorsed by one Sri J. Ravi was presented for payment and paid on 27-8-1992. Pursuant to that an investigation was conducted by Sri P. S. Chaiidrasekar, Manager of the bank. In the investigation report submitted on 5-9-92 the officer has observed that 'daily wager Sri S. Sankar being an artist used to imitate the signa- ture of other staff members of the branch and these reported in the habk of stealing the bank stationery item'. The Investigating Officer had stated that the admitted handwriting of the Petitioner may be refer- red to the Forensic Sciences department in order to find tlie veracity and genuineness of the handwriting available in the tainted cheque. The handwriting of the Petitioner was referred to the Forensic Sciences department for examination. In their report dated J 8-9-92, the Foremk Sciences Department had stat- ed that the person who wrote the tainted iheque for Rs. 60,000 is the person who has furnished the hand- writing in the specimen numbers 68 to 79 which is the handwriting of the Petitioner and that the signa- ture in the disputed cheque did not tally, with the signature contained :n the specimen signature column. Since the involvement trf the Petitioner has come to light, a charge sheet dated 22-5-93 was issued to him. A domestic enquiry was contemplated to go into the charges one K. N. Chinnakrishnan, Law Officer of the bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge sheet issued to the Peti- tioner. During the course of the enquiry, the Peti- tioner has denied the charges levelled against him. A co-worker's assistance was provided to him. to effectively defend his case. 16 documents were marked as management exhibits. Four witnesses were examined as management witnesses. Petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry. On completion of. the enquiry on the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 4-2-94 holding the Petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Deputy General Manager of the circle forwarded the findings of the Enquiry Officer for his submissions on 4-2-94 itself. After analysing the submissions made by the Petitioner and taking into account the relevant re- cords, the Deputy General Manager concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer considering the gravity of the misconduct and circumstances of . the case, he proposed punishment of removal from the panel of daily wager of the bank. A personal hear- ing was accorded to the Petitioner on 17-5-94. The Deputy General Manager had imposed the punish- ment of removal from the puntl of daily wager of the bank on the Petitioner by his order dated 2-6-94. Aggrieved against this order of removal, the Peti- tioner has raised this industrial dispute.

3. The Petitioner in his Claim Statement hats stat-

ed as follows :—

The Reserve Bank of India which is controlling the nationalised banks including the II Party|Managc- ment Canara Bank has issued guidelines on the ration to be maintained in the matter of strength of personnel in each establishment in the category of office-is, clerical staff and sub-staff. Based on such guidelines, the manpower requiiement of each esta- blishment is pre-cicletminciJ and recruitments are made only for the sanctioned strength. Whenever contingency arises lor additional manpower like un- scheduled absenteeism or absenteeism beyond the leave reserved or any temporary pressure of work, in sub-stall" cadre, the same are met by engagement of daily wagers. Jn order tc avoid disruption in the working of the bank, the II PartyfManagement Canara Bank (hereinafter refers to as Respondent| Bank ) for the system of maintaining the panel of daily wagers to meet the contingencies arising out of such absenteeism in f,ub-stafl cadre. Instances of absenteeism in the sub-staff cadre is erratic and un- predictable. Hence, the bank engaged the daily wagers in 'he leave vacancy of sub-staff. The prai- tico of engaging daily wafers is prevalent in all the banks including the nationalised banks. The candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were clone included in the panel of daily wagers, subject to their safiftyiug the age and educational qualifications prescribed by the bank and also sub- jeet to other conditions prescribed as per the policy of the bank. In the ye;tr 1986 the I Party|Work- man Sri S. Sankar (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) wrw sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was selecied for being included in the panel of daily wagers. Thereafter, during the year 1992 he was engaged as a daily wager in the bank's branch at 'Gopalapuram, Chennai. While so, in the month of August, 1992 a letter dated 28-8-92 was received from one Sri P. Ranganathan, a letter of authority holder of M|s. Vijay Marketing stating that upon getting the pass book updated on 28-8-92 he found that an amount of Rs. A0,000 had been debited to their account without he or \\K company having issu- ed any cheque and therefore, they have requested the

He denied Ihe charges levelled against him. He has Bothing to do with the financial transaction of7373 withdrawal of Rs. 60,000 from the account of M|s. Vijay Marketing since he is only a sub-Staff of the bank. The Rt^oodentjBank after passing a cheque aad making payment to the party, when there had been a complaint from M|s. Vijay Marketing had made the Petitioner a scapegoat of its mistake. In the enquiry, the allegations levelled against the Peti- tioner were not proved. Without analysing and ooasklcrirag the evidence, the Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled against tbc Petitioner as proved. The Petitioner does opt sign like other employees. None of the employees in the written statement men- tioned that the Petitioner had imitated their signa- tures. In the enquiry, no document or oral evi- dence was (et in to show that the Petitioner was in habit of imitating the signature of others. Therefore, this allegation is without any basis. In the enquiry nothing was s*td about the altered theft of stationery items from the bank. Theie is absolutely no evi- dence placed in the euquiry to substantiate the alle- gations. The Senior Officers Jwd chosen the Peti- tioner who had been working as A sub-staff as a scapegoat and made vnbeKevable allegations against hku. In the enquiry u was not held that withdrawal of Rs. 60,000 from the account of M|s. Vijay Market- ing was done by the Petitioner. There was no evidence worth of n*entiaa to show that the Petj- tionw has taken the cheque book and had withdrawn, the money from the account. The enquiry conduct- ed with regard to the charge memo is m violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. Forensic Science Handwriting experts report dated 18-9-92 does not disclose analysis of various possibilities. Handwriting Experts opinion is one sided. The Enquiry Officer merely relisd upon the report of Handwriting Experts aad held that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges. An inconclusive one sided report of Enquiry Officer cannot be taken as basis fur holding the Petitioner guilty of the charge. With- out considering the various objections raised by the Petitioner fear the "enquiry report, the Respondent by his order dated 5-5-94 proposed a puoishment of removal from panel of daily wagers of the bank. Thereafter farce of a personal enquiry, the Respon- dent imposed the puiushnmsni of removal from the panel of daily wagers of ihe bank by an order dated 2-6-94 in mechanical manner without taking note of clean past recard of .service of the Petitioner. The Pditioaer is innocent. He has been awarded with capital punishment without any basis. It is grossly disproportionate TO the alleged charge. Therefore, it is prayed that this Horrble Tribunal may be pleased to interfere with the quantum of punishment under section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to hold that the punishment imposed by the Respon- dent against the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice without any basis, unjust and unfair and consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefit",.

I he baiiik lias been engaging him unly as and wiien leave vacancy arises. mete Jiau (x^n scveiai u\v lanrcs, wnexi; ineie were lapses on me part ot the PetiUoner in the perfonnanse oi his duties, lfie charge lewUecf agauisi tnc Petitioner v, as categorically proved ia the enquiry and the Enquiry Ollicer has given his findings oflly after a cartful and detailed considera- tion of all the materials on record. The Investigating Officer in his report has clearly mentioned that Sri S. Sankar, being an artist used to imitate Hie signatures of some of the staff members for the sake of fun at times. The Investigating Officer was tho- roughly cfross examined during the enquiry and the Petitioner could not neither disprove the charge, nor adduce any evidence in support of his claim. A bare perusal of the charge memo issued to the Petitioner, it Is dear that the very basis of the charge is that (he Petitioner had forged one Sri P. Ranganathan's signa- ture in the said cheque leat issued to M|s. Vijay Marketing and wihdrcw the huge sum of Rs. 60,000. Such an act of forgery very clearly and without a trace of a doubt established in the report submitted by Forensic Sciences department. Once it has been established that the signature of Sri. P. Runganathun contained in the cheque leaf in question herein, has been forged by the Petitioner it automatically follows therefrom that the said cheque hook leaf has been unaluthorisedly removed from the custody of he bank by the Petitioner for illegal utilisation as otherwise, he could not have us>ed the said cheque leaf at all. The lapses committed by ledgei clerk, supervisor. Branch Manager who fcad passed the cheque and their failure to act with due care is totally unconnected with the charge of forgery committed by the Petitioner. The enquiry was conducted fully in conformity with the principles of natural jusike. Due opportunity was given to the Petitioner to haivc the assistance of a co-worker, perused ind examined all the documents and! cross-examined all the management witnesses and therefore, there is no violation as :jlleged by the Peti- tioner. Talking into account the grave nature of the misconduct|charge committed by him the Respondent issued an order dated 5-1-94 proposing the punishment The act committed by him is on the faee of it very serious in nature. The veiv reason that such fore.eery has been committed for illegal train of funds belonging the general public who have kept the money in great Trust in the bank would make the chares much more serious thus warranting extreme punishment. There- fore, the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is certainly not excessive or Jisnroportionatc. Hcncr, interference under section 11A on this ;>snect does nitf at aW arise. Tn the even of this Hon'bie Cvur* boldine that the domestic enmiW conducted is not fair alnd orooer the Re-innntfent^-niV rmv be nffnr- ded PTI onoortunitv to ndd'TP fre^h ev'-Vnce before this Crturt to eiihRtantifite the rhr>rnpv. There is nr> merit 'i tTiF" fi^'m <>etiMrtn. TViprr'Vvp >t 1= "'-ov-fi that fhi<; TTon'hV Crwt mw he picked (o demies this industrial dispute.

4, The averments in the Counter Statement of the

IT Partyl Management are briefly as fellows :—

The Petitioner was only selected for beinp included in the panel of daily wafers fn the vcar 1995. He has not ioined the services of the bank as claimed bv him. His work was not continuous and permanent.

5. When th? matter wn* taken un for enquiry, the documents filed on *bc sHr of ibe mpnapement oniv has been marked as Pr. Ml tn M¹''? bv the enff^n* of clcftinset on either side No one Trm been examined as a witmp's 7374 THE GAZETTE UF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001, AGRAHAYANA .17, 1923 TPurr IT—Srr v i hl

o. The Points for my consideration arc—

l. "Whether the order ol punishment dated 2-6-1994 or. the Respondent imposing the punishment o! removal from the panel of daily wagers ot the bank against the peii- tioner|workman Sri S. Sankar is illegal, arbi- trary ana in violation of principles of natu- ral justice?"

2. "Whether the relief prayed by the Petitioner tor a direction to the Respondent to rein- state him in service with full back wages, continuity of seiwice and all other attendant benefits can be granted¹ ?"

- 7375

has been made a scapegoat for the act done by others in the bank. Jt is not even the case of the Petitioner in his Claim Stateuwntt thatt he has been terminated from the service. It is not his case that he is the regularly absorbed employee in the service by the Respondent!Bank it is not disputed that he was only a daily wager included in the panel main- tained by the Respondent]Bank. So, for the proved misenduct the RcspondentjBank has passed an order of punishment by removing him from the panel of daily wager's of the bank. There is rio question of terminaition of Sri. S. Sankar, daily wager by the management of Canary Bank. From the above, it is evident that the action of the Canara Bank Management in imposing a punishment of removal from the panel of daily wager's of the bank against the concerned workman Sri S. Sankar by its order dated 2-6-94 is legaj and justified. Thus the point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Point No. 2 . ~ It is not the case of either party to this dispute that the PetitionerlWorkman Sri S. Sankair was ever absorbed as a permanent employee of the Respondent|Bank Management. It is an admitted case that as one atmong the candidates sponsored hy the employment exchange, the Petitioner was included in the panel of daily wager by the bank and the Respon- dent|Bank used to engage such dailv wagers from the panel whenever contingency arises in the sub-staff cadre in view of any vacancy arises because of absent of regular sub-staff on le^ve or unscheduled absen- teeism. Under such circumstances, thefe is no ques- tion of directing the Resnondcnt to reinstate the Petitioner in service with full bnick waces. continuity of <:ervi/SP and other attendant benefits as nrnvrd for in the nrtim Statement hv the Pefit'nner Hence, one *urh vpiirf nrnved fnr bv tlv PetUionerlClnimnnt ennnot b" nrnnt(vi "I: he is not cntitiecf for the same, in view i-f fbp p n n o i " ^" nrrivevi pi in fli? nnrlier point. Thus, this point is answered according

7. In the result, an Award is passsed holding that the action of the II: PartvlManagement, Respondentl Bank in removing the PetitionerlWorkman Sri S. Sankar, frofji the panel eff the daily wagers of the bank is iu&tified. Hence, the concerned Workman Sri S. Sankair is not entitled td any reilef. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed¹ and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the Rth October, 2001.1

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

On either side :—Norte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I PartvlWorkman :—Nil.

For IT PartylManagement:—

Ex. No, • Date Description

Ml : 22-5-93—Xerox copy of the charge memo

M2 : 18-8-93—Xerox copy of the enquiry pro-

ceedings

7376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : UEC. 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. J(ii)l

Jvlj : 14-2-SM—Xerox copy of the findings of Enquiry Officer

M4 : 29-3-94—-Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

M5 : 6-4-94—Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

M6 : 5-5-95—Xerox copy of the 2nd show cause notice,

M7 : 17-5-94—Xerox copy of the proceedings of personal hearing.

M8 : 2-6-94—Xcroxcopy of the order of removal of Petitioner From the panel of daily v agers, M9 ; 8-8-85—Xerox copv of the letter from the Management >o the Petitioner.

M10 : Nil—Extract of Register maintaining allot- ment of duties to daily wagers.

M il : Nil—Extract of Current Account ledger sheet pertaining to Account No. 1368.

M12 : 28-8-92—Xerox copy of the letter from Vijay Marketing to the Management.

Ml 3 : °8-8-92—Xercu copv of the letter from Vijmy Marketing to the Manaeemcnt.

M14 : 29-8-92—Xerox copy of the letter from Vijay Marketing to the Management, Ml 5 : 1-9-92—Xerox cony of the letter from Vijay Marketing to the Management, M16 : 26-8-92—Xerox ooov of the cheque No. 970501 for Rs. 60,000.

M l7 : Nil—Extract of Current A|c, cheque book issued register.

MIR : Nil—Specimen signature card pertaining to current A'c 13

Ml 9 : 18-9-9?—Xcvox copy of the report of Forensic Science dept.

M20 : 20-1-93—Xerox corv of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

M21 : 2-12-92—Xerox coov of 'he leUer from the Management to the Peiitioner.

M22 : 5-9-92—Xerox cop*' of th" venort of investigation bv Sri P S Ch,nndrasekar, Manager (Field Inspector").

New Delhi, he 21st November, 2001 S.O. 3337.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute, Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Kolkata as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 20-11-2001.

[No. L-120!2]316|87-IR(B-II)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 145 of 1988.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of Management : Mr. D. K. Ghosh, Advocate.

On behalf of Workmen : Mrs. A, Singh, Advocate. STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Banking.

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/316/87-D.II(A) dated 10th February, 1988 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 1 0 ( l ) f d) and (2A1 of the referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank, Calcutta in terminating the services of Shri Mahindra Prasad Mishra, Sub-staff, Old Court House St. Branch of the Bank w.e.f. 1-6-83 and not absorbing him on permanent basis in the Bank is jus- tified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. The present reference relates to the cbiim of the union, known as Punjab and Sind Bank Employees Congress regarding the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank, Calcutta in terminating the7377 services of one Shri Mahindra Prasad Mishra, Sub- stati at Old Court Housu Street Branch with eflect trom Ul-Uo-1983 and also lor not absorbing him on permanent basis in the Bank.

Section 25H ol the said Act. Ihc union has also claimed me due wagea ot tne woikinaa Dy giving a computation and has prayeu uiai me lamination of tne service or the workman concerned be declared to be illegal ana nc be orueieu to ue reinstated in me cadre 01 regular sub-stall 01 the bank and ajso to pay the uues 01 me workman.

*K in meir wrmen siatcincin die maiidgemun hud ciiuiiengea me vauuny aim mamiiiuWLuiiiy 01 nit ruc- iciice i>y staung tnai tiie union unuer reieieiieo na.>, no locus staiiui ana icpniseiiiiiiivj character 10 uspouse me caiuse 01 me workman. Ine rcierence is also Delated one ana it is UOL a CUM ol industrial uispuie and the reference was also made m a mechanical manner by not applying proper mind by the appro- priate authority, it is stated that ihe enure dispute is based on misconception and contrary to me records. It is further stated that the allegations made in the wriiten statement of the union are all nnaguiery and baseless and there is no material to support the allegations. It is stated that the said workman had never worked for the period of 292 days and he was actually a casual worksr who was engaged irom time to time for specific period and was paid wages for the same. It is also denied that there was any assu- rance or understanding on the part of the manage- ment given to the workman to absorb in the perma- nent cadre. It is also denied that any person was appointed to perform the iob of the nature of work done by the concerned workman and it is stated that as the entire claim of the union is unrealistic, there is no question of the management conceding t0 the demand. It is said that Shri Mishra was engaged on temporary basis due to exigencies of work for fixed period and the engagement came to an end by efflux of time and therefore there is no question of termina- tion of service of the concerned workman and his removal cannot be treated as retrenchment. It is also denied that there lias been any violation of the provi- sions of S?istri Award or the Bipartite Settlement or t*ie Desai Award as alleged. It is said that the en- gagement of the workman was for a short duration and the same came to Pin end by efflux of time nnd Ihe provisions of various sec/ions of the Industrial Dis- putes Act. 1947 arc not attractJ. The claim of the dues is also denied ,md dispu'ed as imaginery and unrealistic!.

5. The union has also filed a rejoinder subsequen- tly to the written statement of the management and a petition was later filed for direeirtg the management to file certain documents in its possession. The manage- ment thereafter filed certain vouchers by saying that these were the only documents available with them and mention of any other document is imaginery.

6. So far as the documents axe concerned, it is obvious that on the prayer of the union the manafte- ment filed certain vouchers showing payment of wages to the concerned workman on several occassions between June 1982 to May, 1981. These documents have been admitted as Fxts. \V-1 to W-14. The documents become admitted in view of the fact that the same have been filed¹ by li.e management and lias been relied upon by the union. From these documents it becomes clear that Ext. W-l is dated 7-fi-1982 from which it appears that Rs. 70 was paid to the workman for shifting of almirah in the office. Est.W-5 is duti-d 3. Both the parties have appeared and filed their respecuve written statements, 50 tar as the union is concerned, the statement ol claims was tiled on behalf of the union through the General Secretary of the union who is since dead. It is stated that Mahindra Prasad Mishra was appointed by the management ol Punjab and Sind Bank as a Sub-stall in its Old Court House Street Branch on 3rd May, 1982 and he con- tinued to work till 31st May, iyo3 and thus worked lor 2y2 days. It is stated mat on 31st May, l9tfj the said workman was removed from service of the Bank on specific assurance to him that ihe manage- ment wouiu absorb him in otner branches later, ihus, the management all along assured the said workman about its intention to appoint him on regular basis in any of the branches, but did not carry out the commitment and consider the demand ot the workman. It is also stated, that in place of the said workman the management appointed other persons tg penorm the said nature of job and when the matter .vas brought to the notice of the management, it did not consiuer the demand and continued to give false excuses. On Ipeing disappointed with the auitudc of the manage- ment, the General Secretary of the union approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) through a letter dated 20th January, 1986 and through his letter dated 20th March, 1987 the Assistant Labour Commissioner caued for joint conference ior resolv- ing the said industrial dispute. On several dates, the representative of the Bank participated in the dele- beration, but due to arbitrary attitude of the manage - nient the conciliation proceeding ended in failure, Inc union was also agreeable to arDitration under the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the management was not prepared to accept it and accordingly the dispute camc-up for adjudication. The break-up of the days for which the workman had worked has been given as 150 days from May to September, 1982, 120 days from February to May, 1983 and 22 days in 1983. Thus, 291 days in total. The management also did not issue any appointment letter to the workman, nor any termination letter was issued. Thereafter me man- agement also appointed 4 persons, namely, Shri Anil Behari, Shri Anant Ghosh, Shri Harihar Ram and Shri Ramesh Khatri in the post, but the case of Mahindra Prasad Mishra was not considered. It is stated that the management did not issue any appoint- ment letter, nor framed any charge against the work- man regarding any misconduct and removed lum from service and also appointed some persons in the place ignoring the case of the workman concerned and there- fore the entire action of the management is illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that the management took action contrary to the provisions of paragraph 495, 522/5 and 5 2 2 /4 of the Award of Justice S. P. Sastri, known as Sastri Award and also the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement and the Award known as Desai Award. Therefore, it has been alleged on behalf of the union that the termination of service of the workman, Shri Mahindra Prasad Mishra is contrary to the provisions of Section 2A of the Tndustrkil Dis- putes Act, 1947 and contrary to the provisions of7378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2 0 0 1/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [pARr I I — S E C. 3(ii)] . ^ • ^ • • j . ^ o_ uy vvJiicn us (.u \vab p a iu IO me WOIKHIUII

H-U" U ClU^S iUl ti^UUUl^ IV ui K, L.AI. \i J i.i Uu,\.u

i i - u - i " u_ uy vvuivii J \ J. uu was ptiiu 10 JiC wuin.111....

lOi U U l l jj l.w. 11UI11 j "t-0-IVClZ, IO -iji-lJ-l^oZ L.S Vitltti

wiiatgc. £,XL. w-^ is uatcd zo-o-iytiz by wincn iv". uij was paid. 10 tnc workman io: w i ;i euaiy, iui u u ^ s. jiAi. wo shows LJiui LS.S. OJ wa^ pam io me woiKiuaii lod 6 days. Hxt. W-0 Siiows itiat ±<.s. oU was u^am paid to the workman lurfadays. £•&<•• w -/

auOWS Ulal i v s. OU WaS p ^ iu cU M-"t VVUi,K-

iMnil. uu i U - / - j . > i >^ iuj. VJ ua)i>. JLAI. V*-.U u

that there is mistake in typing and it should haive been 31 May, 1983. He has also stated thaL he was bcnij; paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per day through vouchers. However, he has stated that he was working as a regular peon in the office and was attending to duty regularly. He has stated that he was terminated on 31-5-1983 and thereafter he was also given wrork in the godown for 20 days in June, 1983. However, it has been suggested to him that he was engaged on purely temporary basis and lie was never jjivtn any assurance- that he would be absorbed permanently and he was never employed as a sub-staff.

u t U tu j - u - i i / oz My wj.ui.il i \ 4. /o vvu^ jjuid io n... v u*m.-

i-LUlli iUl UUiVWilUilwOuj VVL>1IV1ILJ1 / UajJ. j_.Al, VV~t> la

vvW-Z, Mm Mauick cimiJuia i*4iowinu;k la an

employee, oi me uaiiis. aiia ne bia^s uiat uiumg Ji*s> peiiua Uic concerned workman, iviaiunuia ria$uu misnia was eiiga&eu ana ne was ixmy, p<.uu uy MJU- ciiers. hu; has also statja that aner nn, terminaiUun some persons were appoimeu in uie IJUUK. He n"ts stated that, he had seen iviahindra Trasaid JVhshxa working as a Chaprasi, meaning mereby as a lJeon, but at the same time he ln& admitted ihat Shri Mishra was a casual employee. He cannot say as to ior how many days tng said workman, Mahindra Prasad Mishra had worked in total.

u>iu,a iu-o-^^iiz uy vvnicu Ks. JU WJ" paiii KJ uiO wo^Jsinan ior luisceiiajjcou:! VVUIK lui j (j"ys. /vuviiwr voucuer aaieu i/-a-lV6*: pint u J^XI. W-6 snows inat KS. M was paxi io tnv v oj.kuiuii lov 3 . fuiouier vouoner as part oi iz,xi. w-"& also snows tuiU Ks. OU was paiid to him on 2$~&-W6J. Ioi b dayi iuui aaothcr p^rt ot t x t. W-8 dated Jl-8-iyii2 showb that K:s. (>0 was paid to rbc waviajwui lor work ol (>

WW-3, Shri -R. S. Pandey is also an employee oi: the Bank and is posted presently aa He,ad Pfon. tio. has stated that MahWcu Prasad MisJara was working as a sub-start, but he was temporary employee. He also stated that he was paati through vouchers at ihe rate of Rs, 10 per d^y. lie; has, however, svuted that he used to work daiily ironi 9.30 A.M. to 6 or 7 P.M. However, in his cross-examination he has stated that he has no personal knowledge as to for what purpose Shri Mishta was engtyjed,

K. 1tiemanagement has examiincd MW-1, SJwi M.S. Konli wao was the Uiett Manas^r ot the Branen wuejw ivj.alimflra iMasaci J\jjsmdc;i was engaged, ne siaJed iha)t ke was ejagaged as casual froju. ume to time aud¹ he categorically stated lliat Slui Mishta never worked as Chaprasi in the Bank. He stated that only, those persons were entitled,tolwndlt; important documents and caph wJtio w&ce negitl"r en-iployees of the Bank, However, he has stated tho4 he was engaged sometime in 1982 aod his jpb was terminated in 1983. He has stated in his ajoss-exnaiiactl that the vouchers filed go to show that Shri Mishrai was engaged for miscella- neous kinds of work which is evident lrom the vouchers, filed. He has also stated that no appoint- ment letter was. issued to a casual labour, nor issuance of termination letter is required. According to him verbal instructions are only issued to such persons.

9. It is clear from Ihe evidence that though it has7379 Accordingly, admittedly neither any appointment letter was issued to him, nor any record of service was ever maintained¹ because he was never ai regular workman.

10. In this view of the matter, it has k en con-

form of appointment. It is also pointed out that in ifle case oi .Director of FuUlJc Instructions, W e s i b u ^ ui v. i>r. Ashis Paul & Ors. 1998(2; CHN 241 it nus been held by their Lordships of the UurTble CalcuUu High Court that "It is aow well settled by reason ot vainous decisions of the Supreme Court of India as also of this Court that r-guiarisation cannot be made ol recruitment," Further, it has been submiicd on behalf ot the management thai reguiansation is uniy permissible when regular postj are available as heiu Dy their Lord'ships of ihe iion'ble Supreme Court in the case ot Central Welfare Board &. Ors. v. Ms. Anjah Bepari & Ors. JT 1996 (it) SC 1 "They would be regularised only when regular posts n;e available ana in accordance with order of seniority." It has also been pointed out that in the case ot J.K. .Public Ser- vice commission &L Ors. v. Uw Nannder Monan &i Ors., 1994(2) SCC oJO it has been held "A little leeway to make adhoc appointment due to emergent exigencies, does not, clothe the executive Government witn power to relax the recruitments to be regular or in accordance with rules. Back door adhoc appoint- ment at the best of power source or otherwise and recruitment according to iitles are mutually antagoiios- tic and strange bed partners. They cannot co-exist in the same sheath. I he former is in negation of fair play. The later are tho product of order and regularity."

11. it has therefore been submitted thai ncilhcj this workman was oven temporarily aippormed against j. permanent post which existed, nur ne regu- larly worked tor 24U clays continuously d'unng tne preceding ]_l months berore his removal, his case cannot be considered IQ be covered by the provisions, oi me inuuiLntti Uiapuies i\^.i, iy-f/, because cciui- rmous service has been u.lineu in iectiun Z3±i oi ihe Aei and Section -Zot" applies only to sucn woikcrs, a nas, iherelore, been juummed tnat Uie contention oi Hit union that the termination ot service ol Malnndrd Prasaii Mislirai was in the nature oi leuenciimeru cannot be accepted. It has also been lurther stated that so iar as the claim under section 2:>G is concerned, though it has been stated on uehulf or the union that some persons were appointed in regular manner by the Bank subsequently, it has never been shown that they were appointed against vacancy caused by the removal of Mahiindra Prasad Mishrai and according to section 25H the re-employnierjl of idrenched workmen is alsu to be made on the basis oi' seniority of the person. Since the present concerned workman had no parity with any other workman, nor it has been shown lhait though he was senior to other persons engugec' like him and he was removed and the person junior to him was retained, nis case cannot be considered for re-employment. So iar as other persons are concerned it has been stated that they were appointed much alter the removal of the said workman, Mahindra Frasad Mishrai and they have hem appointed in regular manrtc,- against regular posts. In this view of the matter, the claim of the union has no basis and foundation.

mo _ _ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PA*r I M i c. 3(ii"l

rule has been shown Uiai a person wno was carliei lenioveu ironi service cau uccumo a member ui me union. Moreover, n tias been pouiltu -*ui that n>spne oi me l ad mai me workman wa,> ienioveU in iy&j, ilie Uispjule was raised as iaie as in lyfco. i>o, it appeaib uiat tne union has just tried tu make ai ground lor commutation with the management by espousing the cause ol a person WHO did not deserve any consi- deration, bo l'mr as the representation as laid down in Semen 36 of Lhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, it has been slated that according to Section 3G of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1 y47 is concerned, it has been stated that according to Section 3b a workman who is ai party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member or where the work- man is not a member of tiny trade union by any mem- ber of the executive or other office bearer of any trade union connected with or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker was employed and authorised in such manner as may prescribed. It hais been stated that it has not been proved that the said workman Mahindra Prasad Mishra happened to be a member of this union and it has also not teen sho*n that he had authorised the union to represent his case. Therefore, the concerned union had no authority to represent him in the dispute, i 3. After considering the entire materials and the discussions made above, it becomes clear that there is no merit in the claim of lhe union in this case. The removal of the concerned workman cannot be treated as retrenchment in the '.eal sense, nor his non-absorp- tion by the Bank can be treated as illegal or improper. It must be noted in this connection that the Banks have to follow certain norms and rules for the pur- pose of making appointments and the first pre-condi- tion is that the name of such person should be for- warded by the local employment exchange. WW-1, Mahindra Pratsad Mishra has himself admitted that his name was never forwarded by the Employment Exchange, therefore, consultation of such appoint- ment is out of question. Moreover, it has been stated by MW-1 that the Branch Manager has no power to make any appointment in the Bank and it is made by the Head Office which is delegated to Zonal Office in some cases. Therefore, it was not possible tor lhe management to have appointed the concerned workman in the Bank and the claim of the workman does not appear to be correct.

14 In the circumstance, the prayer of the union is not fit to be flowed. There does not appear to c? anv illegality in the action of the Bank in this case. Accordingly, the reference is .inswered.

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

j'h.- 9th November, 1001.

Mew Delhi, the 2lst November, 2001 S.O. 3338.—In pursuance of Seection 17 of lhe industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21st Movember, 2001.

[No. L-12011/76/98-IR(B-IIJJ

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 29th October. 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 676/2001

(Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court C.G.l.D. No. 313/99)

In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section ]0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri L. Arumu- gham and the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai.]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Jndian Bank Employees Association, Chennai.

. • .1 Party/Claimant.

AND

The General Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai. . .. II Party /Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Claimant : M/s. D. Hariparanthaman, Sri V. Ajay Kohse, Advocates.

For the Management : M/s. Aiyar and Doha, Advocates,

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and sub-secticu 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 f 14 of 1947), have re- ferred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12011|76;98JTR(B-1I) da:cd I3lh May, 1999 :—

"Whether the Management of Indian Bank is justified in denying Shri L. Arumugham the deployment and payment of special allow ance for Telex Operation and if not, to what relief Shri L. Arumugham, the work- man is entitled to ?"

2. This is an industrial dispute raised by the Gene- ral Secretary of Indian Bank Employees Association, espousing the cause of the workman Sri L. Arumu- gham, questioning the action of the Management of Indian Bank in denying the concerned workman the deployment and payment of special allowance for TeleX Opertion. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by an order dated 30-5-99 had referred this industrial dispute as mentioned in the schedule of reference to Tamil Nadu State Labour Court. Chennai for adjudication. On receipt of reference hy the Prin- cipal Labour Court, Chennai this has been taken on rile as C.G.I.D. No. 313/99. On receipt of notice from the Principal Labour Court for this industrial dispute, both the parties to the dispute appeared through their respective counsel and the counsel for the Petitioner took time for filing Claim Statement. The matter was adjourned in that Court from time to time, on the request of the counsel for the 1 Party/Claimant Union, extending time for filing the Claim Statement of the I Party. At.this stage, on the orders of transfer by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, this case has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. \

3. On receipt of this reference along with other records, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 676/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on records on either side, informing them about the trans- fer of this case from the file of Principal Labour Court, Chennai, to the file of this Tribunal for adju- dication, with a direction to appear before this Tri- bunal with their respective parties on 23-10-2001. Accordingly, on 23-10-2001, the counsel on either side appeared in this Court and it was represented that the matter is being settled and a joint memo will be filed into Court in the next hearing abom the settlement between the parties. On the request of the counsel on either side, the matter was reposted to this day 29th October, 2001 for reporting settlement. The learned counsel for the I Party/Union had made an endorsement on the original reference of this dispute itself that the I Party is not pressing the claim raised in the industrial dispute against the II Party/Manage- ment/Indian Bank. Chennai. The counsel on record for the II Party/Management/Indian Bank present in the Court consented for the same.

4. As per the endorsement made by the counsel on record for the I Party/Union, an order is passed as Award holding that 'No Dispute' now exists as per the referred industrial dispute mentioned in the Sche- dule of Reference between the parties to this dispute and this reference is closed as settled out of Court.

73 Si (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed ami typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 29th Octoher, 200!.) K. KARTHIKBYAN. Presiding Ollicer Witnesses Examined :

On cither side : None.

Documents Marked :

On I'itlifir side : Nil.

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2001 S.O. 3339,—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwuliati as shown in the annexeure in the Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank ol India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19th November, 2001.

[No, L-1201 l/l84/99-IR(B-II)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, GmVAHATT. ASSAM

Reference No, 9(C) of 2000

PRESENT :

Shri K, Sauna, LL.B., Fivsiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

The Management of Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Chandmari, Guwahati-3.

Vs.

The General Secy., UBEU, Fancy Bazar. Guwahati-1.

Date qf Award : 3-9-20017.^2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, . 2 0 0 ]/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II -SEC. 3(ii)1 AWARD

as per promotion policy of 1992 and hence there is no scope for raising this industrial dispute by this union. Management, as per rule has to consult with the recognised majority union as per promotion policy of 1992 which the management has accordingly done and the instant union not being recognised majority union has no scope for raising this industrial dispute.

This industrial dispute has been referred to by the Government oi' India, Ministry of Labour under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act vide order No. L-12011/184/99/lR(B-lJ) dated 1V3-2000 to adjudicate the dispute arising between the manage- ment of Union Bank of India, Regional Ollice, Chand- mari, Guwahati-3 and their workmen represented by General Secretary of UREU, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-1 on the following issue :

"Whether the promotion process from clerical to officer cadre in the State of Assam conduct- ed by the management of Union Dank of India vide circular No. 4414 dated 12-12-97 is in accordance with the Promotion Policy Settlement circulated on 23-10-92 is proper and justified ⁹ If not, what relief are the workmen entitled to 7"

' I have heard the argument advanced by both the parties and perused the relevant record including evi- dence adduced by the party and also copy of the promotion policy entered into between the manage- ment and the recognised majority union. In the evi- dence of the representation of tire union, he has sup- ported the contention raised in the written statement. In the cross-examination, he has pacifically stated that the union which he has represented is not a majority union, but the largest union. It is also admitted that his union was informed by the management about the number of vacancy of the State channel. It is also admitted that management is not required to notify the vacancy of the AH India Channel. Similarly, in the cross-examination of the management witness, he has also stated that the condition of the settlement policy of the 1992 is applicable not only recognised union but also to other signatories union.

On receipt of reference, this tribunal has regisfcre_l this case and issued notices to both the parties calling upon them to file their written statement/addl. written statement, and documents, in response to \>!iich re- presentatives of both the parties have appeared and filed their written statcmcnf/addl. written statement and documents. Apart from documentary evidence, the parties have adduced their oral evidence in sup- port of their respective claim.

The fact of the dispute in brief is that the Union Bank Employees Union in short. UBEU being repre- sented by General Secy, has raised this industrial dis- pute challenging the promotion process to be con- ducted by the management vide circular No. 4414 dated 12-12-97 for promotion of employees from clerical cadre to officer cadre as not being in confirmity with the promotion policy mentioned in the agreement entered into between recognised union and manage- ment on 23-10-92. The union has challenged the process on three grounds, viz. management has not notified the yearwise number of vacancies. Secondly, flubbing of vacancies more than one. vear in one pro- motion process is not permissible. Thirdly, wrong identification of number of vacancies. According to union, number of vacancy to be filed up should be informed to the majority union and not only to the recognised union as per promotion policy of 1992. As the management has not complied with aforesaid condition in adopting the promotion process it cannot be said to be in accordance with promotion policv on 1992 and hence it is disputed.

The dispute was initially raised before concerned labour authority who tried to settle it on conciliation, but having failed to settle the same, the dispute was referred to appropriate Government who has ulti- mately made this reference.

From the perusal of the evidence of the parties and other materials on record I find that the management has to discuss and notify the number of vacancies to the majority recognised union. The representative of the union raising this dispute has specifically stated that his union is not a majority union but largest, union. But as per promotion policy of 1992 the management has to inform the number of vacancy to the majority recognised uuion. Now the point to be decided is whether man- agement has informed the number of vacancy and discussed the other condition with the majority recog- nised union or not. Admittedly, ujtiion raising this industrial dispute is not a recognised majority union. From the list submitted by both the parties to show the membership strength of the union I find that All India Union Bank Employees Association in short (AIUBEA) is a¹ mjygrky union having 11,310 mem- bers and according this union is recognised by the management as majorfty union. On the otherhand the union raising this industrial dispute has Jess num- ber of members than the majority union recognised by the Bank. The representative of the union has not been in a position to establish that his union is recog- nised union and management is bound to discuss with them about promotion process as per settlement policy of 1992. In view of these, T am convinced that the management has discussed with the representative of the majority union about number of vacancy and other condition as per settlement of promotion policy of 1992. The union has further contended about fho wrong identification of the number of vacancy. From the perusal of the materials on record I find that the union has not been able to establish about wrong identification of the vacancy made by the management.

The management, on the otherhand, contended inter alia that before adopting promotion process the matter was discussed with the recognised union which is All India Union Bank Employees' Association which is recognised majority union by the management and also the number of vacancy was also notified to them and all the points agitated by the union in this dis- pute Iv-ive been discussed with the aforesaid union

Another point raised by the union is that clubbing of vacancy of more than one year in one promotion process is not permissible. In the instant case accord- ing to union, the management has clubbed the num- ber of vacancies of more than a year by depriving 73*3---

, New' Delhi, the 21st November, 2001

S.O. 3340.—In pursuance of Section 17 6f the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-12012|42|99-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

some of the employee from appearing before the inter- view in the year when they were found suitable. But this point has been defended by the management stat- ing that the creation or abolition of the vacancy is the function of the management. The vacancies are identified strictly based on the exigencies of the bank. The bank draws up its Manpower Plan based on the requirement in various cadres. If in a particular year, it is felt that it is not in the interest of the organisa- tion/exigencies of the Bank, the Manpower Plan may not be drawn up for particular year and consequently vacancies are not identified. In other words, Man- power Plan, which identifies vacancies in various cadres which arc going to be filled up in, the plan year/years in drawn up strictly as per overall exi- gencies and sometimes Manpower Plan is prepared taking into account vacancies of 2-3 years and ac- cordingly, a combined promotion process is conducted. Thus it js clarified that the conduct of the promotion process in any year is subject to the overall exigencies of the Bank and not merely for the sake of conduct' ing a process every year even though there m,ay not be any such requirement. Hence the exigencies of the Bank warranted clubbing of 2 years vacancies for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. This is so not only for A^sam but for all the States and this Assam State cannot be viewed in. isolation.

. In view of above position, I find that clubbing of vacancy more than a year considering the exigency of the work is not illegal. Bank is a business organi- sation having profitting motive and they are not ban to fill, up the vacancy every year if manpower require- ment does not justify so for tb,e purpose of running the business smoothly. This being the position, I find that the ruling cited by the representative of the union (1998 LAB IC P. 2116) is not applicable in the case as it does not relate to clubbing of vacancy in any business organisation, but relates to police depart- • • , ;^ ment. . •

From the forgoing discussion, I am of opinion that the management has not violated the condition of the settlement of 1992 in adopting promotion process and hence management can be said to be unjustified in adopting the promotion process from clerical to officer cadre. Accordingly, I hold that this reference deserved to be answered in favour of the management which I accordingly do.

In the result this reference is answered in favour of

the management. Prepare an award accordingly.

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Jodhpur in terminating the ser- vices of Shri Shirmohar Meena, Ex. Daily Rated Employee w.e.f. 7-5-97 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

3630 GI/2001—25,7 S # " ': THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. :"DEG, 8, 2001/ AflJ^JjAYANA, J7, 1921 [F.AWOI^-Sfe. 3 7ty7386; THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART JI—SEC 3(11)] New Delhi, the 13lh November, 2001 S.O. 3341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputei Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Rail- way, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2001.

CNo. L-41012|74|92-IR-DU[(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRtAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR CASE NO. CGIT]LC1R|2O6|93

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI K. M. RAI. Shri Om Prakash, S/o Shri Lalji Prasad, RB. II, 287-C, East Colony,

Bina, Distt. Sagar

.. Applicant.

Versui

Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhopal

.. Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of November, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-41012[74|92 IRDU dated 30-9-93 has referred the following dispute (or adjudictkm by this tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Central Railway Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Om Prakash, Slo Shri Lalji Prasad Ex Labourer w.e.f. 15-10-90 is legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

2. The case for the workman is that ho was appointed as casual labour by the management on 8-10-87. On 5-2-88, he acquired the status of monthly rated casual labour. On 30-1-90, a chargesheet was issued to him by the management making allegations of unauthorisedly absence against him. He submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him. He remained absent from duly because of his serious illness. He had intimated the management regarding his illness. The medical certificate regarding his illnss was sent by him 10 the management and the Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Bina who had found the same to be correct. The managemnt did not accept his reply and decided to hold DH against him. He was not given ample opportunity to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer. No cnurges were proved against him during the equity proceedings. The management fraudulently obtained his. signature on the blank paper and misused it in the enquiry by incorporating his alleged con- fession of guilt. The DE was an empty formality. He was not given opportunity to produce defence witness before the . Enquiry Officer. The entire enquiry was conducted in viola- tion of the principles of natural justice. Copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to him. No show cause notice was issued to him by the management. The Enquiry Officer had nbt conducted the enquiry in a just and impartial manner, The enquiry officer wrongly held the charges proved against him. The Disciplinary authority had illegally accepted the report of enquiry officer and passed the order of termination against him On 15-10-1990. He preferred an appeal against the order of termination before the appellate authority. His appeal was not considered properly and was rejected without applying the mind by the appellate authority. The order of removal from service passed by the management Is abso- lutely illegal and deserves to be quashed. He Is entitled -to reindtflteroent with back wage* and other monetary bene- fits

3. The case for the management is that the workman work- ed as casual labour in a broken period. He remained absent from duty without any authority. The management legally decided to hold DE against him for committing the alleged misconduct. The enquiry was conducted in a just and proper manner. The workman was given ample opportunity to defend his case properly before the Enquiry Officer. He had participated in the enquiry proceedings and never objected to the procedure adopted by thte Enquiry Officer. He was given opportunity to aduce evidence in support of his defence. No rule or principles of natural justice were violated by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the DE. The Enquiry Officer was absolutely impartial in conducting the DE against him. The Enquiry Officer righlty held the charges proved against the workman after consider- ing all the relevant facts and circumstances available on tho record. No prejudice has been caused to the workman in the present case. Looking to the seriousness of misconduct, the punishment of removal from service was found to be just and proper. The order of removal from service does not re- quire any interference by this court. The workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by the workman.

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

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

2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct against the workman.

3. Whethter the order of termination from service passed by the maaagement against the workman on 15-10-90 is just and proper?

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

5. Relief and costs?

6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 ;

It has been held by this court on 27-2-2001 that the DE conducted against the workman is just and proper and the management is not required to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct of the workman. In view of this finding these issues need no further consideration.

7. Issue No. 3 :

The workman was chargesheeted for remaining absent from duty for a considerable period of time without any authority. The workman has specifically stated that due to illness, he remained absent from 8-5-1989 to 26-12-1989. He had sub- mitted the application along with medical certificate to the management for sanctioning the leave, Except this no mis- conduct is aliened to have been conducted by the workman. The management as not been able to prove that the work- man never fell sick during the period of his absence from duty. In such a circumstance the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be disproportionate and too harash. Lesser punishment shall meet the ends of justice. It is therefore held that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the workman is not just and proper. This issue is answered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 4 :

In view of my finding given on Issue No. 3, it is held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement without back wages. On the principle of no work, no pay, he shall not be entitled to receive any monetary benefits as claimed by him. This issue is answered accordingly.

i 9. Issue No. 5 :

On the, reasOTis stated above, it is held that the order of termination from service, passed against the workman on 15-10-1990 is improper and accordingly it js hereby quashed the workman shall be reinstated. He shall not be entitled to back wages and other monetary benefits^ claimed by him.

10. The period of his absence from duty shall be treated on duty only, for the purposes of pensioner^ benefits. The refe- rence Is accordingly answered in jfavoflr 7337

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

2. Ths first p^rty was working witht lie secord yirty. He was terminated from service and thereforo industrial dispute is raised.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 13th November, 2001

S O. 3342.—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 In- dustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Southern Railway, Mysore ;ind their workman, which was received by the Cent- ral Government on 12-11-2001.

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

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

5. It is the case of the first party that he joined service as inspector of Works on 1-12-1968 in the Hassan Mangalore Railway Construction Project against a substantive and sanc- tioned post. He worked till 12-3-1980 but unfortunately his services were terminated without issuing an order of termi- nation and assigning any reasons. It wauld be pertinent to note that as per Chapter 25 of the Indian Railway Establish- ment Manual, when a person who is appointed as a Casual labour works continuouslv for about four monthSj he becomes entitled to be conferred temporary status allowing benefits such as fixation of pay in regular scale of pay besides pay- ment of other allowances and benefits. Details are stated in Para 1 of the Claim Statement.

6. First party is a workman and the action of the manage- ment is not correct. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is also stated in para 6 of the Claim State- ment. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

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

[No, L-41012|177|95-IR(B-I)l

8. It is true that the first party was engaged as Khalasi on daily rate of pay in Hassan Mangalore Railway Project w.e.f. 5-12-1968 and he has worked upto 3-10-1979 under Inspector of Works, He has worked under permanent way Inspector, Hassan-Managlore Railway Construction, Saklesh- pur from 3-10-79 to 12-3-80.

AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated : 1st November 2001

PRESENT :

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

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE C. R. N. 203197

1 Party

Shri N. Subhash Chandra Bose, Gundethetta House, Gundia Post, Nelliyadi, Puttur. (Advocate-M.S. Anandaramu)

n Party

The Dy. Regional Manager, Southern Railway, Division Office, Mysore. (Advocate-S.M.Salihl)

AWARD

. -I- The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause ,(d) of sub-sectiort 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute Vide order No. L-"4tt)12[177|95-IR(B-I) dated 4th. March 1997 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether tho management of Southern - Railway, is Jus- tified .in terminating the services of, Shri N.¹ Silbhash Chandra Bow w.c.l. 1Z-M980? if w t, So., what rtlief th* workman it mtitled?"

9. It is the further case of the management that on comp- letion of the said work the first party was stopped work w.e.f. 12-3-80. Notice was given to the first party and settle- ment was made.

10. Thte allegation that the first party was working against the substantive and sanctioned post is not correct, First party was only a Casual Worker. The contention of the first party that he would be re-engaged once again is not correct.

11. It is the further case of the mangemrnt that the first party had no requisite continuous service which would have qualified for temporary status. The Statement of workman is also given in the Counter.

12. It is Said that continuous employment would mean continuous engagement on the same work of the same type of work as explained in the earlier paragraphs. Provision contained in Ru!e 2512 of Chapter 25 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual are stated in detail. Management for fhef

13. It is seen from the records that workman got exa- mined himself. The evidence of first party is that he joined the Railway Department as Khalasi in the year 1968 and worked upto 12th March 1980. He further says that no ferminatlnn letter,was given and no charge sheet was issued. The termination is illegal. He was not given any compensa- tion.

14. Against this we are having the'evidence of MW1, S.M. Sahadev and his evidence I? that first party was engaged as Casual Labour Khalasi in Hassan Mangalore Railway Constriction Project and that project work was for p fixed period. He further says that the services of the first party came to an end in March 1980, He has tfven

15. MWI in his cross examination has stated that it is true that the first parfv was working in the department from 1-12-68 to 12-3-1980. It js established from tho recorda and evidence that the first party has worked for a lone period 5in the department MWli admits his cross examination that they hav" not Iwued any termination onto* 7f#" THE OAZETTE OF mpfo tjmt^Zm/^&M&AW^A. 17, 1923 [PA*1 -11™$*. $.flfo]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSfRlAL WifflU"AfceyM*hABC>VR COURT "SHRAM SADAN". Ill MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD.

ltyRcfftrt I^procQjd further, it is. important to nqteohat . M #e J P f l WH "WfiW4be ^BMJWKHjent¹ W * a J d. rftat -the-flm party has worked w.e.f. 5th" December 1$68 to l2-3-f98Q. First party has said he has worked from 1-12^68 to J2-3-_liaOLiind_ho,Juu also worJced for more than, 240 days in a year.

YBSHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 1st November, 2001

PRESENT:

[Na. ;L^tQW/tTS/9StRIfcJ)]

*. It 'U taie-iihatt*ii"jflrtir^"ttyvw"S[*it"ft*I as Khalosl oj^ qWJy f% Wfttefm ^toWtn^MdJjgalftto"Railway Project w.oif, Mn-mttiM^yiu wodt*t ihtn'Vfto 3-10-7?.

T^he' DrvisionaFRailway. -Mamner, Sovtberni'{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}R4irwjiy, - BfrsonSel Branth, 20. In my opinion .this submission of £he first jpaly, seems to be quite reasonable. Fact remains that first party has Wj#sd4pr;a.,l08g porjod and he can be included in;tthe list • M^per aeoiorlty.-Aowrdiagly I pnoooed- to pas»?the followiag Myjdrei'y/WZl. tAdV6c»te-^S.L M. Salirfi) O«4er :— AWARD Reference is partly allow.ed. The denartment ia .directed ' • L ' T hr CtateaK"iS<»vorn«3ont by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of ihe Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes *^Act, i 947' has referred this dispute Md daxed 23rd July, 1896 to inQlude {he name pf .nrsU>arJty iatfee l^t, Of £aw/t Wpyk- .*fS. ai per.flwiiority ,if be iulflDs^l tte inquired'(miW»«- * for adjudication .on the-"foUowlng.-«chedule : tions. "SCHEDUtE mei*t*d:4oJlA. -»TW»cjib«d-*y-J»er «wwpttd *ad ««ned *y ,me on ht *Nov«iber'2001). V.• -K "KSJLKAKWI, PWsKKnf JOflker "Whether the-jm^wsmant of Southern Railway, is justi- fied in terminating the services of Shri P. J. Joyiechan w.e.f. 12-3-1980 7 If not, to what relief thowfttatan is entitled?" 2. The firs,t party was workip^ with ^(he second party. He was icfmiBatrtd from service and therefore 'industrial dispute is raised. 3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement arid Counter respectively., 4. The case of the first party in brief Is as follows: New Delhi, Jht llth Novwnber, Z001 5. It is the case of the first party tharhe Jpjrtfd ICrvice as a Khalasi on 12-12-1974 in the Hassan Mangalore Railway Construction Project against a substantive and sanctioned post. He worked till 12-3-1980"bm urifOrtunately/his services were terminated without issuing an order of termination, and assign- ing any reasons. It would be pertinetit to noteJ that as per Chapter 25 of the Indian Railway .£«tablishraeqt "Manual, when a person who is appointed as a "Casuallabour works continuously for about four months, JwSbocogifls,,entitled to be conferred temporary status allowing., banRftfa' «u,ch as fixation of pay in regular scale of pay besides payittwi): <>f other allowances and benefits. Details are stated in Para 1 of the Claim Statement, 6. First party is a workman, and the action of the manafie- mont as stated in para, 4 Of" the claim Matemeftt is not correct. L a w ' ^d ydtyn ;>y the.,Hqn'ble"SuprejiMe;CoHTt 6f Irt'aia is a b o r t ed in pa*a.< QiVwOTnfnt Jjejeby , pubjishes tfce award .itf tfa^ €m»«l*l 'eovewimcnt Industrial :rTribunal cum Labour Go«rt, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute "b.e*«YCCn the,i|m- ployers in rrfaJiop Jo the 4naw?igenMMit of S^thejn Jtajl^ay, Mysore and their workman, which was received by the Central Gowrpwmt on t2-U-2OOl. ↩

7">r?

9. • It is> tlrt- .further- cawjof the!jBunajfiiienfetmil on-?com-

pletion.: oft. the.-said work ,the fijst party, was stopped work w.e.f. 12-3-80: Notice-WM given-to thfc fitt'r pkty^and settfc- moot wan mntta •

"10. THe- alfcgklioir that;fh"-.flm p"T

11. It is the further case of the management that the first party. ha"t rto 'reqtii"ii" continuous service which would have qualified for temporary status. The Statement oC workman is also given in the Counter.

N t w D e l hv ther 16thitNcwemlnir,- 2iJ0i I %• It.' is said- that, continuous, employment would • mean continuous engagement on the same work or the same type of- work as. explained in the earlier, paragraphs. Provision contained in Rule 25\1 of' CKaptef; 25"'ot Indian--Railway EitaHtshmont Manual a rc st"te"hin dalatli Management for these reasons and for some.other, reasons has prayed to reject the reference. i

13, -It is seen from the records that workman pot examined hirnsejf.' The evidence-of first party is-that her has- worked from 12th Dtttomlw, 197+ to 12thrMarch, 19"0.

S.O.f 3J44:^Iii^pmim"ncv.t)fT-Sefttioti-17. of the Industrial Dteputo"Act^. 1947 (l*'of.-" 1947), thw Central: Oovemment hereby- pnhlisferar tho awwrdi' of" the Industrial Tribunal, Guft-ohatui AstmmTairshowtt'inithe-Arfttrawe to the IndusCrial DiStnrto'-betwaen^itheh-empkK^ftBrin^elationiJoiihfc manftgement of: Railway EmplOyarr Conaiiniiw CerOperaiive Society Ltd., and- their workman; whiofe""w"s r recetw*¹ by the Cantwd Governmentnoa-iliKl 1-2001.

14.-Before-1 proceed further it;is-- important 'to note that in' the Counter itself the management- has said that ,-tho first pa,rty has..workcd w.o.f. 12th December, 1974 up to 3-10-1979. Firtt party has'said he has-worked-from 1974Mo l$8ff and he!has also* wariccd-rfoi-more' than-r240 days- in a ve"r;

[No. -Lv41.ftli2/85'2000iIR(B^I)l

AMVKUMJ"fR, Desk' Officer

ASSAM¹'

1W THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC'S, 20(11/AORAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART ;JI—Sue 3(11)]

documents if any, m response to which, both the parties have appeared and filed their written statement/addl, written state- ment and. documents. The workmen has examined himself as W,W. 1 and management has not adduced any oral evidence from their side. •

After recording evidence, • arguments advanced ; by the representative of both, the parties are heard,

The. fact of the case , as reflected. from the. materials on record is that the workman was initially appointed by the management as Sales-man in their Consumer Co-operative Store run by the Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd, on 31-12-1992 at a consolidated pay of Rs. .100 P.M. Having satisfied with his performance, he was subse- quently promoted to the post of Memo Clerk from 22-2-9.1 vide letter No. RECCS|STAFF|91[1 at a consolidated pay of Rs, 130 P.M. and In said capacity workman has been discharging his duties. But on 8-11-96 one Shri I. Haque, sales-man of the society had weighed 3 kgs. of sugar instead of 2 kgs, and cash memo for 2 kgs of sugar were issued by the workman. But the matter was noticed by the a member of the society and incumbant was cought in the red handed and realised the price of 3 kgs. of sugar and issued cash memo for it and matter ended there. But subsequently, management has issued show cause notice to him on 9-11-98 on the charge of alleged irregularities and thereafter consider- ing his reply workman may terminated from his service with immediate effect. The workman has filed a representa- tion before the management for his reinstatement but same was not considered by the management and the workman ultimately approached the concerned labour authority who had tried to settle the matter on conciliation, but having failed to settle the same, the dispute was referred to appro- priate Government who has ultimately made this reference to this Tribunal.

After hearing argument, I have gone through entire ma- terials on record including evidence of the workman -rnd find that tha management has not appointed any domestics enquiry officer to enquire in to the allegation levelled aginst the workmen. Moreover, DO formal chnrge was framed against the workman and no reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend his case by constituting domestic enquiry. It is a settled law that before terminating the service of a workman in any charge levelled against him the domestic enquiry must be constituted to enquire in the matter by giving the workman a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Moreover no notice under section 25 of the I.D. Act was not served upon the workman nor any notice money was pniti to h/m which arc mandatory in nature. From whatever angle case is judged, it is found that the order of termination is in flagant violation of the mandatory provi- ";on of law which tenders the order of termination void ab- inition the eye of law.

So fnr the fact of the case is concerned, I find that ft is very trival in nature relating one kg- of sugar. One I, Hnciue, ti-MV 3 k?a. of suenrs and workman has issued memo in 2 kg. but subsequently de'ertintr the mater the workman has issued ensh-memo for reimininp nne ktr. and price also has been rtfiisrvl In vi?w nf this it )^ fond thnt the workman has not c^mpii't'-d nnv offence in the eves of law. Alleged irregulari- ty'; Wrlled by the management is nothing but human error for vh'ch onp should not be penalised by inflicting severe punishment like dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons I hold that order of termination is not justified and is liable to be set aside which I accord- ingly do.

In the result this reference is answered in favour of the workman with n direction to the management to reinstate the workman ''n the post from where he was discharged within on? m?nth from the date of this award. Prepare an nwsjrd accordingly.

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001 S.O. 3345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Pandyan Grama Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-12012|78|99IR(B-T)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 15th October, 2001 PRESENT :

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 13512001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 105|99)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudica- tion under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), bet- ween the Workman Sri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalingam and the Management of Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudburiagar).

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, P'V.dynn Grama Bank, Tin pi oy oe 3 Association, Virudhunagar. I Party [Claimant.

AND

The Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank, Vrttidhunagaf. II Party [Management7391 APPEARANCE :

and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is enitled '?" For the Claimant.—M|s. P.V.S. Giridhar, D. Geetha, Rajeni Ramadass, Ad- vocates.

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party|Claimant are briefly as follows :—

For the Management.—M]s. N. G. R. Prasad, S. Vaidyanathan, Advocates

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and subjection 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12012|78|99|IR(B-I) dated 17 6-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 105199. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 135|2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, in- forming them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 01-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 10-10-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the documen- tary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learn- ed counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for considera- tion 'his Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred in the above order of reference by the Centra] Govt, for adjudication by this Tribunal is p.s follows :—

The Secretary of Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Association has raised this indus- trial dispute espousing the cause of the workman Sri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalingam, the I Party-Claimant (herein- after refers to as Petitioner) has averred in the Claim Statement that the concerned workman was appoined as cashier in the II Party [Management of Pandyan Grama Bank (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 24-7-1992. The Respondent has issued a charge memo dated 3-5-91 alleging that on 10-3-88 the concerned workman in collusion with branch in charge of Shenbagaramanallur misappropriated a sum of Rs. 14,000 while making payment based on withdrawl slip for Rs. 27,650 in Saving Bank Account No. 823 of one Mr. Subbaiah Asari and that he has pcud only the balance of Rs. 13,650 for which he had given the coinwar payment and that the concerned workman submitted his expla- nation to the charge memo on 31-7-91 deny- ing the charge framed against him as false and baseless. As the Respondent was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, a domestic enquiry was con- ducted to enquiry into the charges framed against the concerned workman. The En- quiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a pre- judiced manner in violation of principles of natural justice. By an enquiry report the Enquiry Officer had held that the concerned workman is guilty of the charge framed against him without appreciating the evidence on re- cord in a fair and objective manner. He ought to have considered the fact that the charge memo was issued to the workman on 3-5-91, three vears after the alleged incident on 10-3-88. The Enquiry Officer has also failed to arroreciate that no comnlaint has been given bv Mr. Subbiah Asari, whose money, the con- cerned workman is alleged to have misappro- priated and that he continued to be the cus- tomer of the Respondent [Bank even nftT the alleged incident. He has been issued with a p.is"; hank and WTS wry well aware of the transactions made by him on 10-3-88. The Enmiirv Officer erred in i^norinfr flip defence of the workman thn.t he faiiprl to note down tlip denomination for Rs. 14,000 in the said withdrawal slip only due to inadvertence and "Whether the action of the Management of Pandyan Grama Bfnk i'n impos- ing the rjnnistimpnt of stoppage of one increment of the workman Snri T. Siva Shnnknra .Sirndnra M.ihn1m?.^m with cumulative effect and treating the neriod of t;on as 'Not spent on Duty' is legal

3630 GI/2001—26.

7392 THE GAZETTE OF itftJIA ; DEC. 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART H—SBC. 3(ii)]

ment given by the depositor Mr. S. Subbiah Asari and also his pass book. But the Appel- late held the charge proved without consider- ing the statement given by the depositor, who is the material witness in respect of the charge framed against him. On the other hand, the Appellate Authority held that the punishment oi dismissal from service was highly dispro- portionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore, the Appellate Authority directed the Respondentjbank to reinstate the work- man in service but imposed a penally of stoppage of one annual increment with cumu- lative effect and to treat the period of suspen- sion and termination as a period 'not spent on duty'. The order of penalty passed by the Appellate Authority is unreasonable and unfair as the charge framed against the work- man has not been proved beyond doubt. The Appellate Authority ought to have consider- ed the statement given by the depositor who has accepted that on 10-3-88, he has with- drawn the entire amount of Rs. 27,650 after duly signing the withdrawal form. They also failed to give credence to the passbook of the depositor which was submitted by the work- man which clearly shows that the entire amount of Rs. 27,650 has been withdrawn by him. The Appellate Authority without con- sidering the evidence on record and without giving reasons for coming to the conclusion that the charges are proved against the con- cerned workman, has passed an order reduc- ing the punishment imposed against the con- cerned workman without holding that the charges are not proved. Moreover, the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a rrnior penalty which ought not have been imposed upon the work- man without giving adequate reasons. The Appellate Authority has merely relied upon the enanirv report given by the Enquiry Officer whose findings are perverse and not in accor- dance with the principles of natural iusfice. Hence, the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute bv filin.p a petition for conciliation be- fore the Assistant Labour Commissioner ("Cen- tral) on 2-5-96. The Respondent submitted their reply statement. As the conciliation ^nded in a failure, the Assistant Labour Commis- sioner (Central) submitted a failure report on the basis of which, this disrmte has been referred by the Govt, for adjudication. There- fore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may ht pleased to set aside the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect imposed by order dated 6-5-95 and to direct that he has not misappropriated any money of the depositor. The Enquiry Oificer has failed to construe withdrawal slip produced by the Respondent in proper perspective. He ought to have appreciated the fact that the depositor Mr. Subbiah Asari has signed the reverse side of the withdrawal slip in token ot having received the entire amount men- tioned in the front side of the withdrawal slip. The signature of the customer on both sides of the withdrawal slip clearly shows that he has obtained the entire sum claimed by him. But the Enquiry Officer by merely relying upon the fact that the concerned workman has failed to note down the denomination in the withdrawal slip and by failing to consider the evidence on record as a whole, objectively in total has erroneously held that the charge has been proved against the Petitioner. He has also failed to note that the Respondent has failed to examine Mr. Subbiah Asari, who is the material witness in respect of the charge framed against the workman. When the charges are denied by the delinquent work- man, the burden of proof lies on the Respon- dent to prove the charges framed against the concerned workman. The Enquiry Officer has shifted the burden of proof on to the workman. The Respondent has failed to consider the past record of service of the work- man. During his 13 years of service, no complaint has been received by the Respon- dent against the concerned workman. More- over, the concerned workman has mobilised the deposits in the bank by his own effort and has also received certificate of apprecia- tion from the Head Office. As the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accor- dance with the principles of naturnl jusfice the enquiry report is vitiated. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The Respondent has failed to apply his mind in- dependently to the evidence on record by merely relying upon the enauiry report has erroneously passed an order of dismissal against the workman on 21-2-94. The Res- pondent has also failed to consider the detail- ed explanation dated 25-1-94 given bv ihe Petitioner to the show cause notice da*ed 11-1-94 before passing the final order, The concerned workman preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority before the Bonrd of ^irertors of the Resnonde^tl'Rnrik. Through H<; fnre^ntntinri d^red' 17-3-94 nnrt denied the rhnrrr™¹ frnmod arrninst him bv the Res- pondent. He has also submitted a signed state-7393 the Respondent to treat the concerned work- man's suspension and termination period as period spent on duty passed by the Board or Directors of the Respondent | bank and to consequently pay the arrears of pay and allowances following thereform.

3. The averments in the Counter State- ment of the II Party|ManagementjPandyan Grama Bank are briefly as follows :—

Further at the back side of withdrawal slip, the concerned workman has deducted Rs. 14,000 from Rs. 27,650, while making payment. In withdrawal slip signature in Ihe first page is obtained for withdrawal the amount and at the backside to acknowledge the receipt of amount. But both the signa- tures are used to obtain at the time of writing withdrawal slip itself. Denomination shows the evidence for payment made denon^n^ion- wise. If entirely Petitioner has not written the denomination, the case would be different. In this case, the concerned workman has written denomination for a part of the amount and thereby it creates a doubt about the payment of full amount. Preponderance of probability is enough in domestic enquiry to establish the charge. The Management considered that the documentary evidence is enough to prove the charge. Full and fair opportunity was given to defence side in the enquiry. Nothing prevent- ed defence from producing Subbiah Asari as defence witness. The Disciplinary Authority carefully examined the management, defence exhibits, defence witness, enquiry proceed- ings findings and reply to show cause notice and matter conveyed in personal hearing. In his final order, the Disciplinary Authority has stated that the charge sheeted employee also admitted that there are no evidence for the above transactions, which he had referred to in the personal hearing. The Disciplinary Authority considered all facts before issuing the final order. The Appellate Authority carefully perused the Management and defence exhibits deposition of defence witness, en- quiry proceedings and other available records before taking a decision. The statement given by Subbiah Asari at the appeal stage is an afterthought of the Petitioner and Mr. Subbiah Asari has given this statement only to safeguard the concerned workman. Only after considering all available evidence, the Appellate Authority has passed an order of reducing the punishment of removing the con- cerned workman from Bank's service to stoppage of one annual increment with cumu- lative effect, which itself shows that Appellate Authority was very fair in considering the ap- peal. The punishment of removal from bank's service was reduced to stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Tn the domestic enquiry the prepondarance of pro- balility is enough and charge need not be prov- ed beyond doubt as Law of Evidence is not applicable to domestic enquiry. The letter given by tiie depositor is only to safeguard The averments in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner that the concerned workman has discharged his duly sincerely and in a dedicated manner and has a good record of service is not correct. His rating of work was poor. The said workman displayed gross negligence in discharging his duties as Branch Cashier. It is denied that the concerned work- man has got good record of service. In the enquiry the concerned workman was permitted to engage defence representative of his choice to produce the defence exhibits and defence witness. Defence representative verilied the management exhibits. Full and fair oppor- tunity was given to the Petitioner and his defence representative, as such there is no \iolation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer after analysing management and defence exhibits, defence witness, management and defence arguments and all other materials available on record held the charge against the Petitioner as proved, Delay in issuing the charge sheet will not mitigate the seriousness of the lapses committed. There is no need for any complaint. Charges can be framed against any staff member on the basis of available evidence from bank records. As serious lapse were noticed in bank records against the concerned workman, charges against the concerned workman, charges were framed. Mr. Subbiah Asari is a carpenter and supplier of Bullock Cart to IRDP beneficiaries.. He was maintaining the account only to en- cash pay order. There is no need to discon- tinue the account. Pass book entry is based on withdrawal slip amount and charge is actually payment of less amount than with- drawal slip amount. The contention of the concerned workman that he had inadvertently failed to note down the denominations in with- drawal slip is not acceptable. As per his version, he paid Rs. 14,000 first and later paid Rs. 13,650. If it is so, how he could have omitted to write denomination for Rs. 14,000, when he has written denomination for Rs. 13>65Q which w&s paid subsequently.

7394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAEtAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Petitioner and it is an afterthought. Otherwise, the Petitioner would have pro- duced Mr. Subbiah Asari as a defence witness or his statement would have been produced as defence exhibits. The Appel- late Authority has gone through the pass book entry which showed the withdrawal slip amount to conceal the mis-appro- priation, whereas the actual cash pay- ment was less. If the Appellate Authority had not analysed the evidences, he would have confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the above facts, the contention of the Petitioner has no merit and is liable to be rejected. Hence, it is prayed that this Tri- bunal may be pleased to dismiss the industrial dispute.

4. When the matter came up for enquiry by the consent of counsel on either side the documents of either side have been marked as Ex. Wl to W6 and Ml to M4 respectively. On the subsequent hearing by the consent ot the learned counsel on either side.. Ex. M5 to M7 and W7 were marked. No party has let in any oral evidence. The arguments advanc- ed by the learned counsel on either side were heard.

5. The point for my consideration is-:—

"Whether the action of the Management of Pandyan Grama Bank in impos- ing the punishment of stoppage of one increment of the workman Shri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalin- gam with cumulative effect and treating the period of termination as 'Not spent on Duty' is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

Point :—

6. When the matter was taken up for en- quiry, it is found that the issue in respect of the industrial dispute between the parties as mentioned in the Schedule of Reference is incorrect. A joint memo has been filed by the counsel on either side, stating the correct issue to be decided in this industrial dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the issue of the industrial dispute between the parties referred to in the Schedule of Reference has been refrained properly as stated above.

lur branch. A charge memo dated 3-5-91 was issued to the Petitioner by the Chairman | Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent,Bank alleging that on 10-3-88 when he was work- ing as a Cashier in the RcspondentjBank's Chenbagaramanallur branch had committed a misconduct in collusion with the branch-in- charge by misappropriating a sum of Rs. 14,001) while making payment of withdra- wal in S.B. Account on 10-3-88 and that as against the proceeds of Rs. 27,650. he had paid Rs. 13,650 only and he had not account- ed for deduction of Rs. 14,000 and thus, he along with the branch-in-charge had misap- propriated the said amount of Rs. 14,000. Ex. Wl is the xerox copy of the charge sheet dated 3-5-91. For that charge sheet, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 31-7-91. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M l. In that explanation, the Petitioner has stated that he had made payment of Rs. 14,000 also but failed to note down the denomina- tions and it will not mean that he had mis- appropriated that money. Not satisfying with this explanation submitted by the Petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted into the charge framed against the workman and the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charge framed against the Petitioner, Ex. W7 is the xerox copy of the report of the En- quiry Officer. As it is seen from the enquiry report Ex. W7, five documents were exhibited in the domestic enquiry on behalf of th< management. No one was examined oi the side of the management as a witnes to prove the charges levelled agains the Petitioner [ delinquent employee a mentioned in the charge sheet Ex. Wl It is contended in the Claim Statemen that the Enquiry Officer has conducted th enquiry in a prejudiced manner in violatioi of principles of natural justice. It is furthe alleged that the charge memo was issued t< the Petitioner three years after the allegei incident and there was no complaint given b; the customer S. B. account holder Mr.Subbiai Asari, whose money the Petitioner is allege to have misappropriated and the Enquiry Officer has erred in ignoring the defence of the Petitioner that he failed "to note down the denomination of Rs. 14,000 in the withdrawal slip onlv due to inadvertence and that he has not misappropriated any money of **"" ^nosi- tor. It is alleged in the Counter Statement that in this case the Petitioner has written denomination for the part of the amount and thereby he creates doubt against the payment 7. The Petitioner Sri T.. Siva Shankara Sundarra Mahalingam was. workine as a cashier in the Respondent|Bankr Chenbagaramana- 739 4 of full amount and that preponderance of proodt)iniy is enough in the domestic enquiry to esiaousn the cnarge. The Enquiry Olncer, oti ihe basis ot me uve documents hied on the side ot the management in the domestic en- quiry, witnout examining anyone as a wit- ness on tnc side ot the management to prove the enarge, had come to the conclusion that the cnarge framed against the Petitioner in the charge sheet dated 3-5-91 stands proved as per Ex. ME1. Ex. ME1 is the xerox copy of the withdrawal sup of S. B. Account No. 823 of Sn S. Subbiah Asari for Rs. 27,650 dated 10-3-88. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer in Ex. W7, the Disci- plinary Authority has issued a show cause notice dated 11-1-1994 to the Petitioner pro- posing the punishment of removing the Peti- tioner from bank service and directed the Peti- tioner to submit his written reply for the same. The xerox copy of the show cause nptice is Ex. W2. Ex.* W3 is the xerox copy of the reply submitted by the Petitioner for the show cause notice under Ex. W2. The Disci- plinary Authority has passed a final order aj:ter affording a personal hearing to the Peti- tioner by compelling the proposed punishment of removing the Petitioner from the bank ser- vice with immediate effect. Ex. W4 is the xerox copy of the final order dated 21-2-9'4 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Against that tiie Petitioner has preferred an appeal dated 17-3-94 to the Appellate Authority. The xerox copy of that appeal petition is Ex. W5. Ex. W6 is the xerox copy of the order dated 6-5-95 passed by the Appellate Autho- rity. In that order, it is stated that the Committee is of the view that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of tlic misconduct, therefore, decided to rein- state Sri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalin- gam in the bank service and to reduce the punishment of removal from bank service to stoppage of one annual increment with cumu- lative effect. The period of suspension and termination will be treated as a period 'not spent on duty'. Against this order passed by the Appellate Authority, for imoosing the revised punishment on the Petitioner, they have raised this industrial dispute after the attempt they have mnde before the conciliat- ing authority, ended in a failure.

years after the alleged misconducted said io nave been commiiu-d Dy me jfeuuoncr, tue charge sheet under Ex. Wl has been issued. It is not disputed that no complaint has been given by Mr. Subbiah Asari, whose money the Petitioner is alleged to have misappropriat- ed. In the domestic enquiry also the said S. B. accountholder Mr. Subbiah Asari has not been examined as a witness for the manage- ment, who can give the material witness to speak about the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 14,000 by the Petitioner from out of this total amount of Rs. 27,650 he withdrew under a withdrawal slip from his S. B. Account on 10-3-88. This has not been done to prove the charge levelled against the Petitioner mention- ed in the charge sheet Ex. W l. when the charges were denied by the Petitioner himself in his reply to the charge sheet under Ex. M l. If really, one such grave misconduct has been committed by the Petitioner while dis- bursing a portion of amount withdrawn by a customer from his S. B. Account which is more than the 50 per cent of the amount he sought to withdraw from Ms account on that day, the said customer of the bank would have im- mediately preferred a complaint against the Petitioner about his misconduct or bring it to the knowledge of the higher officials in the bank (Management. No such complaint has been preferred by the concerned customer Mr. Subbiah Asari. The enquiry proceeding in Ex, M2 shows that no one has been exa- mined on the side of the management as a witness to prove the charge against the Peti- tioner. That being the case, the Enquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that the chnrd ce-ited ?> donb? nbout the? payment nindo bv the Petitioner fo the customer on that dny for thr withdrawn!. Tt fa the contention of the Resnondent in their Counter State- ment that nrenondaranc* of probability is PTIO'IPJI in domestic pnoi"'rv to establish the chirrs, ftnt it fa not eo pfntod bv HIP F.r>?nirv OffWr in his renort Ex. W7-. Tn M7396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA c DEC. 8, 2001/ AORAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(li)] Chand Jain "the Tribunal can disregard the hnuings oi the Enquiry Orncer, if they are per- verse . Here, in this case it is seen from the re- cords inclusive ot the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer's report that the Enquiry Ohicer nas given a finding that the charge against the delinquent employee, the Petitioner herein has been proved by the Management in the domestic enquiry and for his conclusion, there is no substantial evidence as a proof on the side of the Management. Hence, it is nothing but a perverse rinding of the Enquiry Omcer and it is not justified by any legal evi- dence.

9. In the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management, the Enquiry Oiiicer has not considered the fact that no material evidence has been let in by the Management to prove the grave charge of misappropriation of the customer's amount to the tune of Rs. 14,000. The concerned customer S. B. account-holder Mr. Subbiah Asari is the material witness to prove the misappropriation of his money by the Petitioner has not been examined by the Management before the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. Though Evidence Act is not applicable to such domestic Tribunals, it does not mean that where the issues are seriously contested and have to establish and prove the requirements relating to proof can be dispensed with. This non-observance of the basic procedure amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the Enquiry Officer has given a perv-'-- " ¹* •-". which has been relied upon erroneously by the Disciplinary Authority to pass a dismissal order against the concerned workman and the same has been relied upon by the Appellate Authority in modifying the punishment to one of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect and another one of treating the period of suspension and termination as period of not spent on duty. So under such circumstances, it is held that the ultimate order passed by the Appellate Authority against the Petitioner in imposing the punish- ment for the alleged misconduct, which is not proved in the domestic enquiry by the Man- agement is unjustified. Thus, the point is ans- wered accordingly.

the act was done by the Petitioner with collu- sion, the question of complaint from the drawer of tne instrument will not arise. He has not stared as his finding as with whom the Petitioner has colluded in commuting this grave misconduct of misappropriation of Rs. 14,uuU of the customer's money. He has simply stated as his finding in the report that the charge framed against the Petitioner in the charge sheet dated 3-5-91 stands proved as per the exhibit the withdrawal slip Ex. ME1. So, from this it is seen that the alleged grave misconduct of misappropriation of Rs. 14,000 of the customer's money by the petitioner | workman has not been proved with substantial, acceptable and legal evidence by the Management before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the stand taken by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accor- dance with the principles of natural justice, are acceptable. Further, it is alleged in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner that the Respondent has fail- ed to apply his mind independently to the evi- dence on record and by merely relying upon the enquiry report has erroneously passed an order against the workman on 21-2-1994. It is evidence from the Appellate Authority's is evident from the Appellate Authority's imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner is dis- proportionate to the gravity of the miscon- duct. So they were pleased to reduce the punishment to that of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect by treating the period of suspension and i^t-mim^n as period 'not spent on duty'. While giving one such order for revised punishment, the Appel- late Authority has also failed to consider that the charge levelled against the Petitioner has not been proved by the Management in the do- mestic enquiry. Further, the revised punishment imposed by the Appellate A ^- -;*-' nt stop- page of one annual increment with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension and termination as the period not spent on duty amounts to double jeomrdy ns mention- ed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Further the Appellate Authority in the order has not stated whether the alleged misconduct as mentioned in the charge sheet against the petitioner [workman has been proved. As it is held in the case reported as AIR 1969 Supreme CQUrt 983 Centra Bank of India Vs. Prakash

10. In the result, an Award is passed hold- ing that the action ^f tiw management of Pandyan Grama Bank in imposing the punish- ment of stoppage of one increment of th"7397 workman Shri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalingam with cumulative effect and treat- ing the period of suspension and termination as a period 'not spent on duty' is illegal and unjustified. Hence, the Respondent)Manage- ment is directed to treat the period of sus- pension and termination of the petitioner! workman Sri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalingam as period spent on duty and to pay the arrears of pay and allowances follow- ing therefrom to the concerned workman. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 15th October, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side.—None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I Party | Claimant :

Ex. No. Date Description Wl 03-05-91.—Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to the concerned workman by the Respondent]Bank.

W2 11-01-94.—Xerox copy of the show cause notice.

W3 Nil Xerox copy of the reply of concerned workman to the show cause notice,

W4 21-02-94.™Xerox copy of the final order of the Disciplinary Authority.

W5 17-03-94.—Xerox copy of the ap peal preferred by Shri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalingam to the Respondent | Management.

W6 06-05-95.—Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority Xerox copy of the letter from the Enquiry Officer To the Discioiinary Authority en- closing the Enquiry findings report on the charge sheet.

For the II Party]Management :

Ex. No. Date Description

M2 29-05-92.—Xerox copy of the en- quiry proceedings.

M3 Nil.—Xerox copy of the Enquiry findings report.

M4 Nil.—Xerox copy of the management exhibits.

M5 03-01-83.—Xerox copy of the Cir- cular No. PA-1 of 83-Verification of cash receipts and payments.

M6 23-12-86.—Staff Clerical Sri T. Siva Shankara Sundara Mahalingam, SCC loss of pay from 6-11-86 And 7-11-86.

M7 25-02-92.—Xerox copy of the cau- tion letter from the Management to the concerned workman regarding Loss of safe keys.

New Delhi, the 13th November, 2001 S.O. 3346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute* Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tho Award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Ihe management of Air India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2001.

[No. L-11012[163|2O0O-IR(C-l)1 S. S. GUPTA, Und:r Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 19th September, 20.01 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 559|2OO1 (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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workrnan Sri Ayyasamy and the Management of Air India Ltd. Chennai.)

BETWEEN

Sri Ayyiaamy : I Party|Workm*B.

Ml 31-07-91.—Xerox cony of the letter from the concerned Workman to the Respondent | Management.

7 3 f lg • T im G A Z E T TE OF I N W A ,: n E C ^ 8 , . 2 0 O l / . - A O ^ A H A X A NA 1 7, 1 9 23 [ P A R T .I I —S E C. 3 ( H )]

AND

The Southern Regional Manager,

Air India Ltd., Chennai. : II party| Management, APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M[s, D. Dhanam and D.R.A Vcd- hanayagam, Advocates.

For the Management ; Mis. S. Ramasubramaniam and Associates, Advocates.

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Onier No. L-11O12|163|2QDD-IR(C-1) dated 16-3-2001.

On receipt of the reference of the industral dispute bet- ween the 1 Party|Workman and the II Party|Marugement by an order dated 1G-3-2001 by Ministry of Labour, Gov- ernnu-n of India, as mentioned above, this Tribunal took the same on file as l.D No. 559|2001 and notices were sent to both the parties by Registered Post with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 19-4-2001 and to file the Claim Statement of th? I Party [Workman. M[s. Ramaaubra- maniam and Associates, Advocates entered appearanco on behalf of the II Partv/Manajccment and had filed Vakalat. Subsequently, on 6-6-2001, M|s. Dhanam and D.R.A. Vada- nayagam, Advocates filed Vakalat for the I Party[Workman and took time for filing Claim Statement. Though timf was granted as per the request wf the I PartylWorkman's advo- cate for filing Claim Statement of the I Party|Workman, Claim Statement has not been filsd and there was no repre- sentation on behalf of the T PartylWorkman. The • counsel, who filed the vaknlat for the I Party|Workman, has not appear- ed before this Tribunal till 30-7-2001, the date on which the ?ase has been adjourned for filing Claim Statement of the I Party/Workman M last chance. On 30:7-2001, either the I Party or his counsel wns nresent and there was no repre- sentation for the I Party|Workman. .The counsel for. th? II Party alone was present and on his request, the case wns ad'ourried to 10-8-2001 and 13-8-2001. On that dtfe, the counsel for the II Party [Management had filed the statement of objections for ;hc referred industrial dispute and the counsel his ahc advanced arguments.

After perusing the Schedule of Reference of the referred Industrial dispute, the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Respondent ;md after considering the arguments ad- vanced bv *hr lenrned counre1 for the IT PartvlManagement, find this industrial disnutc having stood over till this date for consideration, th;s Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Trdtrtrial Depute referred to in the above order of r;fcr~ncp by the Control Government for adjudication by (h'T Ttibun.il is as follows ;—

"Whether th? demnnd of the workman Shri Avyisamy that he rmy be reinstated in service and absorbed a; reffnlir workman of Air India is ii^tifk'd ? If not, to whit relief is the workman entitled and from what date?"

filed their pbjectiona for the demand made by the I Party/ Workman" In the industrial dispute referred .to for adjudica- tion.

4. The averments in the Statement of Objections filed by the II Party[Management (hereinafter refers to as tho Respondent) are briefly as follows :—

The Respondent has already filed their reply for the representations submitted by the [ Party|Workman (herein- after refers to as Petitioner) before the Regional Labour Commissioner. As far as the Respondent is aware at this point of time, since there is no employer-employee relation- ship between the Respondent and the Petitioner at any point of time, the dispute raised by the Petitioner apainst this Respondent is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed Inlimine. The Petitioner has raised this dispute after a delay cf almost six years and he has not given any reason or justification to raise this dispute after such an extraordi- nary delay. Hence, this depute is liable to be di'mused on the ground of delay and latches. The Respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Rcspondent|Managcmcnt has got a number of permanent workers for attending to regular and normal operations. At no point of time Air India engaged this Peti- tioner to do the cleaning as contended by the Petitioner. The Respondent/Management according to their requirements engaged various labour contractors for various jobs. 'Ihe Petitioner might have worked with the contractor, who was entrusted with the job of house keeping of Air India pre- mises during that time. A perusal of the records available wilh the Respondent[Management docs not indicate that the Petitioner was at any time an employee Of the Respondent! Management. Furthermore, .since the alleged non-emnloy- ment of the Petitioner even according to him ways back to 1994, it is unable to trace the records. Whatever records have been located do not show any link between the Respondent and the Petitioner, as his name does not appear in any of the records. Hence the Tribunal may bj pleased to answer the reference, by dismissing the claim of the Petitioner.

5. The Poioft for my consideration is—

"Whether the demand of the workman Shri Ayyasamy that he may be reinstated in siyvicc and absorbed as regular workman of Air India is justified ? Tf not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?"

Point :—

As per the reference made ad an industrial dispufe for abdication by the Ministry of Labour, Government of Ind'a as referred to above, the I Party/Workman, Sri Avvasamy had made a demand for reinstatement in service and -r.bsorption as a regular workman by the Respondent/ Management of Air India Ltd,, Chennai. Though one such demand¹ has bren made by the petitioner)workman by rais- ing this industrial dispute, he has not chosen to come forward to file his Claim Statement and to prosecute the case before thk Tribunal by establishing his stand with acceptable legal evidence. Inspite of he engaged a counsel to represent him in this dispute, no further steps has beesi taken by the concerned workman Sri Ayyawmy to put forth his case for the demand he has made against the II PnrtvlManagcment as a relief under this industrial dispute. Tn the absence OF the reDresentatkm on the side of the I PartylPetitioncr by himself and his counsel on record, the stnnd taken by the II Par-ty|Manacement through their state- ment of objections to this referred dispute has been conKV1eri*d as the only material available is this caso to decide the referred industrial dispute on merits.

7399

before the Regional Labour Commissioner. It is further alleged in their objection that according to thoir require- ments, the Respondent/Management had engaged various labour contractors for various jobs and the Petitioner might have worked with the contractor, who has entrusted witn the job of house keeping of Air India premises The Petitioner was not an employee of the Respondent|Manage- ment at any point of time. All these averments in the Statement of Objections mentioned by ths Respondent/ Management has not been disputed by way of any initial Cla ^n Statement or as a reply statement by the I Pai ty/ Workman. For getting the relief, as per the demnnd men- tioned in this industrial dispute against the Respondentl Management, the r Party[Workman has not placed any materials before this Tribunal, inspite of sufficient opportu- nity was given to him. So under such circumstances, ill the absence of any plea and logal tcceijtable evidence by the I Party|Petitioner|Workman, the undisputed stand taken by the II Pariy|Management in their Statement of Objections can be taken as acceptable. It can also be presumed that the I Paity/Workman has not come farwtird to prosecute this case only because he has no materials worth considering to decide the issue in his favour. Under such circumstances, it can be easily concluded that the de- mand made by the I Party/Petitioner, the concerned work- man Sri Avyasamy against the II Party | Air India Management for reinslatement in service and absorption as a regular workman of Air Ind;a is not justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. ThuSj the point is answered accordingly.

7. In the result, an Award Is passed holding that the demand of the concerned workman Sri Ayyasamy for his reinstatement in service and to be absorbed as a regular workman in Air India Ltd. is not justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for nny relief. No Cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 19th September, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

On eithetr side: Nil.

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001 S.O. 3347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad as shewn in ihe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tisco and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-11-2001.

[No. L-20012|83|97-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA. Under Secv.

3630 Gl/2001"-27

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Piedding Officer.

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

Reference No. 65 of 1998

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management o/ Tisco Ltd. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Woilman.—Shri Lal Mohan Pandey, the concerned workman.

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

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th October, 20O1I

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers confined on them under Sec- tion 10(1) (d) of the I. I). Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012;83|97-(C6al-I), dated, the 11 th March, 1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Tisco, Jarhadoba in degrading Shri Lal Mohan Pandey from Foreman (Mech.) to Asstt. Foreman is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmar is entitled ?'

2. In this reference boili the parties appeared and filed a Memorandum of Settlement before this Tri- bunal under their signature. I heard both the parses on the said petition of settlement and find that tfic terrils of sc.tlement are fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly I accept the said settlement and pass an Award in terms thereof which forms part of the Award as Annexure.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

ANNEXURE

IORM-H

[Rules 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957]

Memorandum of Settlement

For the Employers :

1. Sri A. K. Singh,

Asst. General Manager (HR), M|s. Tata Iron k Steel Co. Ltd. Jamadoba, Dhanbad.

7400 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : HEC. 8, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)J

2. Sri Anwar Hashmi,

Asstt. Divisional Manager ( P ), M's. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamadobn, Dhanbad.

.F.;r the Workmen :

I.Sri A. K. Sinha,

Secretary, R.C.M.S., 6 & 7 Pits Cclly, Branch,

2. Sri Lal Mohan Pandey,

Asst. Foreman, P. No. 217023, 6 & 7 Pits Colliery,

Short Re dial of the Case

Sri Lal Mohrm Ppndev was promoted to the post of Foreman (Mechanical) with effect from 21-9-94, and was placed at Bheiatand Washery. He submitted an anplicr-it'on dfiicd 26-9-1994 wherein he expressed his desire to work in Jamadoba Group provided he was olaced a", A^st. Foreman. The management considered his request pnd he was transferred back to 6 and 7 Pits Colliery as Asst. Foreman from 29-4-1995.

Tnercuffcr, nn indusfri.il dispute was raised before the'ALC(C), Drnmbad on behalf of Sri Lal Mohan Pandey, Asst. Foreman. P. No. 217023 of 6 and 7 Pits Colliery over alleged reduction in rank by a non- recognised union namely Jharkhand Colliery Maz- door Union but no settlement could be reached due to divcrfjint v'ews of the parties.

Finallv, the appropriate Government referred the induslrial dispute to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Ind;i:trk'l Trjhunr.1 No. II, Dhanbad for adjudication vide its Order No. L-20O12|83'97 (Coal-I) dated 11th Maich, 1998.

During t1v" pendency of the said reference case W O T, the Cental] Government Industrial Tribunal >'.n. 2, Dh..nb?d, the concerned workman Sri Lal M: Iran P.indey n.pnronclKd the management through Irs union, Rnsh'trjya Collier/ Mazdoor Sangh for ••'•.ttlem.:nt rf Ms c;<-p\itc. After prolonged negotia- tion, the dispute has been amicably settled on the tViownj.! terms nnd conditions :

Terms and Conditions

\. That, Sti Lal Mohan Pandcy, the concerned workman, will b; deemed to hfive been promoted to Feirmnn's grade on 29-4-95 notiongllv and his wages '.is p'.T th's :-c;!l;'ro';rt will bo notionally arrived at as on 29-4-95. Tlievehve, from year to year his wages as per Irs cvsHU'.Tneni w>ll be iccreased and arrived at nolicnn'ly t;ll :.(l 7-98.

2. His ".\p?r'cnee in the post of Foreman shnll be counted fnun ^ 1-9-^4 for Ihe purpose of his future promotion u;iJcr the Cadre Scheme;

3 Th?.t, fry 'hv: p H od from 29-4-95 to 20-7-98 'be worknnn ";lnll not be eftitled-.to a.ny wages or benefits as per the notional fixation as said above.

4. Thar, ar.ur-1 pavnjem of w?ges as per the notional fixation as sa;d abcvi:, will be made as from 21-7-98

5. That, this teUIenient m tht: insiant matter and any and every mnttcr c.xis'inj therefrom stands fully and fi'ially settled.

6. That, this s e g m e nt v/i'l take effect as from the dat'; the Hon'bk Tribuna: accepts this settle- nien< =">s fair find pi oner ind be pleaded to pass an Av.ard in terms of tins ceUkmcnt.

Th's settlement is s ' ^ cd on th^ day 30th June, 1998.

For the Employers •

(Sd.|-)

1. Sri A. K. Singh,

As.st. genera] Man;:ccr ( H R ), Mis. T;ita Iron & S'ecl Co. Ltd., Jamudobu, Dhanbiul.

(Sd.;-)

2. Sri Anwar Hashmi,

Asstt. Divisional Manager ( P ), Mis. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamadoba, Dhanbad.

For the Workmen :

(Sd.|-)

1. Sri A. K, Sinha,

Secretary, R.C.M.S. 6 and 7 Pits Colly. Branch.

(Sd.j-)

2. Sri Lal Mohan Pandey,

Asst. Foreman, P. N. 217023,' 6 and-7 Pits Colliery, •

Witnesses

•CSd.|-)

l: Sr! 'Sh-islii Kumar, Officer (Admn.').

A'OM !HR)> O^ICC, ..imp. (Sd.|-)

1. Sri E>. K. Sharma,

Head Clerk,

.AGM.(HR)'s Ofiica, Jmb.

U.idcr Rcpd. Po=t with A'D,

C'cpy fonvarded to :

I. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of Ind'n, ^Inrstry nf Lnbour, Shram TChTLV.-mi, New Cdo-.y, P.O. Jrgiiwan No"nr, Dhan- bad.

7. The Refj'onnl Labour Commits;oncr (Central), Government of Ind;T, MntiM"/ of Labour, Shmm IJ'Mwn N PW Colony, P.O J^nwati Namr Dhan- b-!t!-8?.6OO3. • "

3. The ChJcf Labour Crmmissioner (Central), Shram Sukti Bhawan, Rr.fi Marg, New Delhi, 4. Secretary (o Government of India, Ministry of Lubcur Shram Sakli Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

5. Parties concerned.

Information Technology Service Jamadoba.

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001 S.O. 3348.—In pursuance of Section J7 of the IwkUrial Disputes Act, 1V47 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the O-'ntral 'Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad as :;hown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tisco and their workman, which was received by the Centred 'Government on 16-11-2001.

[No. L-20012/601/97-IR(C-I)J

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

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

DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Bisv/us, Presiding Officer.

In ths matter of an Indu'itrir.l Dispute under Section 10(i)(J) of (he I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 213 of 1998

PARTIES :

Eaiplovcr., 'n ie!,ition ,to the management of Ms. T'sco. Ltd. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of th; Workman.—Sri Ram, Erich, the concerned workman.

On behalf of the Employers.—Sri B, Joshi, Advocate.

STATE ; Jlnrkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Da^d, Dhanbad, the 20ih October,' 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in cxcrc;rc of 'ihi powers coni erred on them under Sec- tion ]0(I)(d)' of,the I. D. Act, 1947, has referred ihi; following dispute to thn Tribunal for adjudica- tion vide theit Order'No. L-20012;60i;97-Ik(Coal- f), dated, the'30th November, 1998.

7431"

SCHEDULE

"Wheiher the action of the management of Digwadih Colliery of M]s. TISCO. in dis- missing Sri Ram Bmli, Ex-Surface Tram- mer i'rom the services of the company w.e.r. 10-5-96 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

7, In this reference both the parties appeared and filed thdr respective W.S., documents etc. Subse- qu^i^y at the ;,tnge of oral evidence the concerned workman appeared and filed a petition, praying there- in to p.isr, a 'No dispute' Award in this reference as lie is not will'ng to proceed further. No objection was rai-'erl en Hie skle of the management if a 'No dispute' Awaid is passed in this reference. Under tiiich c'rcuni.Unices, a 'No dispute' Award is render- ed and ih¹- reference is disposed of on the basis of the 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the workman and the management presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001 S.O. 3349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-11-2001.

[No. L-20012/284/92-IR(C-I)] S, S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 2 of 1994

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bhowi-a Colliery of M/s. BCCJL7402 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA : BB£: 8, 2©M/ A0RAMAYANA 17, 1923 [PftR* It-SBC. fr(U)j AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

before the ALC(C) which resulted reference to this Tribunal. The concerned workman accordingly has prayed for passing an Award directing the manage- ment of Bhowra (N) Colliery U.G. Mines for provid- ing employment to his dependent son.

On behalf of the workman—Shri S. C. Gaur,

Advocate.

On behalf of the employers—Shri H. NathF Advo-

cate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated: Dhanbad, the 31st Oclobcr, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(284)/92-I.R.(Coal-I)fl dated, the 30th September, 1993.

SCHEDULE i

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL, Bhowra North Colliery, UG Mines in not providing employment to dependent of Ramdhani Dhabi, Ex-Mining Sirdar of Bhowra Colliery (N) (U/G Mines) under Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman according

to W.S. in brief is as follows :—

3.The management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum-rejqinder has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The management submitted that the concerned work- man being a Mining Sirdar attended his assignment upto 23-7-91 vide management's letter No. PS/90/ (N)/UG Mines/Ret./752, dated 1-8-1990 in pursu- ance of Medical Examination report conducted by the Medical Board of the D.G.M.S. Dhanbad vide letter No. Exam./Med/JR/SR/Coal/Metal/2736 dated 30-7-90. The concerned workman did not attend his duty as Mining Sirdar after the expiry of Medical certificate of fitness of D.G.M.S., Dhanbad. Thereafter he was served with a retirement notice vide letter dated 27-7-91. The management further submitted that on receipt of letter No. OH/343031 dated 30-7-90 from the Asstt. Director of Mines Safety (DH) to the Agent, Bhowra (N) Colliery the case ot the concerned workman was referred to the Medical Board of the Company. Since the concerned workman was not medically examined by the Medical Board and in bet- ween he retired on 2Q-1-92 from the service of the company and for which the confirmation of the said disease by the Apex Medical Board of BCCL could not be obtained. The management submitted that untill and unless an employee is dclared medically unfit by the Medical Board concerned there is no merit of the demand of the union to consider employment to the dependent of the concerned employee under clause 9.4.3 of NCWA as the concerned workman was not declared medically unfit by the Apex~Icdical Board of the Company. Accordingly the management have prayed for passing an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. The points for consideration in this referenci

are :—

"Whether the action of the management of M/s BCCL, Bhowra North Colliery, UG Mine in not providing employment to dependen of Ramdhani Dhobi, Ex-Mining Sirdar c Bhowra Colliery (N) (U/G Mines) unde clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV is justified? ] not, to what relief the concerned workma: is entitled ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS The concerned workman submitted that he came in employment under the management with effect from 26-5-46 and since his employment he had to work in different capacities. Ultimately he became Mining Sir- dar and rendered his service to the entire satisfaction of the management. He submitted that as per statutory record i.e. the Form B Register his date of birth was 20-7-32. He submitted that his service was terminated on the medical ground on 24-7-91 as the Dy. Director of Mines Safety, (OH) for D.G.M.S. vide his letter dated 26-7-91 addressed to the Agent, Bhowra (N) Colliery wrote that on 26-7-91 the Junior Medical Board of the Department of Mines who examined the concerned workman detected him to be suffering from coal workers Pheumoconiousis und advised that return in Form V under Section 25(1) of the Mines Act be filed to the Directorate for disability evaluation and other necessary action. The management instead of sending him to the Apex Medical Board stopped him from duty as per their letter No. PS/90/(N)/U.G. Mines/Rct./752 dated J-8-1990. They ulso in the meantime issued him letter of retirement dated 18/ 27-7-91. The concerned workman submitted that in terms of clause 9.4.3 of NCWA IV provisions have been made for employment of one dependant who is declared permanently disabled in his place. He sub- mitted that inspite of stopping the service on the ground of Phaumoconiousis the management did not consider necessary to provide employment for one of his de- pendent son though he claimed such relief. Accordingly the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute

5. The concerned workman in order to substantial his claim examined himself as witness in this case The management have examined two witnesses in order to counter the claim and allegation which the con- cerned workman has brought against the management. Considering the pleadings of both sides as well as con- sidering the evidence of the concerned workman and also of MW-1 and MW-2 I do not find any dispute to hold that the concerned workman was a Mining Sirdar under the management at Bhowra (N) Colliery. It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that in discharge of his duties as Mining Sirdar he because seriously ill of coal workers Pheuraoconiousi? and it was detected while he was examined by th*7403 after 23-7-91 the concerned workman did not join his duties. 1 consider thai, such piea nas been taken by the management with a view to shield their fault which they committed because of the fact that the letter it- self marked as Ext. M-3 will speak clearly that the concerned workman was allowed to work upto 23-7-91. No evidence is forthcoming before the Tribunal to show which step the management took against the con- cerned workman lor stopping from duty without giv- ing prior intimation. I think the management is not unaware about the provision of clause 26(i)(c) of the Certified Standing Order. It is seen that the concerned workman was contacted with such serious disease only for his rendering job to the management faithfully. It was expected that the management had some obliga- tions to protect the concerned workmen when they came to know about the ailment of the concerned workman and also to render all medical assistance to him when they came to know about his such ailment officially. No explanation is forthcoming before this Tribunal why the management showed such cold atti- tude towards the concerned workman though it was very much within their knowledge for lpng years that the concerned workman rendered his service faithfully for the interest of the management. The prayer of the concerned workman was very much modest. Referring clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV the concerned workman submitted his prayer for employment of his dependent son as he was medically unfit for his suffering from Pneumoconiosis. It is seen that the management did not consider necessary to pay any heed to his appeal. On the contrary, the management submitted that as the concerned workman was not declared medically unfit by the Apex Medical Board and also as he was superannuated in due course of time he is not entitled to get any such benefit as provided under Clause 9.4.3, of NCWA. It is seen that long before the date of superannuation, the Asstt. Director of Mines Safety DGMS, Dhanbad by his letter dated 30-7-91 informed tfte management about the ailment of Pneumoconiosis which the concerned workman was suffering from and also requested to take appropriate steps in this regard. But inspite of receiving the said letter the management did not consider necessary to send the concerned workman before the Apex Medical Board. Therefore, for the faulty decision of the management the concern- ed workman was deprived of getting natural justice. On the contrary he was not only stopped from attend- ing his duty with eficct from 23-7-91 but also the management hurriedly issued the letter of superannua- tion to him and thereafter superannuated him with effect from 20-1-92. I must say that the decision of the management was absolutely arbitrary and illegal. It was the duty of the management to send the concern- ed workman to Apex Pneumoconiosis Medical Board for assessment of his physical fitness, but the manage- ment did not do so for their whimisical and arbitrary attitude for which the concerned workman suffered a lot. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman submitted that thereafter he submitted petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for com- pensation and the Commissioner after hearig both sides awarded compensation to him. Again the said order the management preferred an appeal before the Hon' ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi but the Hon'ble High Court not only dismissed the appeal but aho djrected the man^geij^ent to pay compensation to th" Junior Medical Board held on 26-7-91 at DGMS, Dhanbad. The management in the pleadings admitting tliis fact submitted that on the basis of that report the concerned workman attended his assignment of duties as Mining Sirdar upto 23-7-91 but thereafter the con- cerned workman did not attend his duties as Mining Sirdar. It is the specific contention of the concerned Workman that inspite of getting report of the Medical Board the management did not consider necessary to send him to Apex Medical Board for examination of his medical fitness. On the contrary he was stopped from his work with effect from 23-7-91 and thereafter he was served with a notice of retirement and super- annuated him witji effect from 20-1-92. In this con- nection not only the management but also the con- cerned workman relied on the letter marked as Ext. M-4 as well as Ext. W-l. This letter was issued to the Agent by the Asstt. Director of Mines Safety (OH). This letter speaks clearly that the concerned workman was detected to be suffering from coal workers pneu- mocpniosis, by the Junior Medical Board held on 26-7-91 at DGMS, Dhanbad. By the said letter the Assistant Director of Mines Safety requested the Agent to submit a return in Fbrrn-V under Section 25(1) of Mines Act, 1952 to this Directorate immediately. They also suggested that the case also be referred to the Medical Board of the Company for disability evalua- tion and other necessary action. No evidence is forth^ coming on the part of the management which step the management took on receipt of the said letter in ques- tion. On the contrary by letter dated 1-8-90 marked Ext. M-3 the management relying on medical exami- nation conducted by the Medical Board, DGMS, Dhanbad allowed the concerned workman to continue his present assignment till 23-7,-91. It is the specific allegation of the concerned workman that thereafter the management stopped him from work. Clause 8.7.4 of the NCWA-1V clearly speaks that "in order, that the Pneumoconiosis is detected and facilities for arresting and cure of the disease are created, adequate machinery for the same will be established in each company where such machinery has not been estab- lished. In each coal producing company a Medical Board to deal with the problem of pneumoconiosis will be kept operational and will start functioning. These Medical Boards would examine the cases of pneumo- coniosis within 7 days of receipt of the report of de- tection of pneumoconiosis". According to schedule III of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 Pneumo- coniosis is an occuatioiml disease. That disease is caused by solarogenic mineral dust (silicosis, anthraoo- silicosis, asbcatosis) and silico-tubercuiosis; provided that silicosis is an essential factor in causing the re- sultant incapacity or death. Therefore, it is clear that ' the disease which the concerned workman suffered from was absolutely a disease due to occupational hazard. As per para 8.7.4 of NCWA-IV it is clear that which step the management shall take if any workman is contacted wilh such disease. With utter surprise it is noticed that the management inspite of getting know- ledge about such ailment of the concerned workman in view of letter receive from the Assistant Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad did not consider ncccssa:y to take any step for his medical treatment. They also did not consider necessary to refer the concerned workman before the Apex Medical Board to assess his medical fitfless. tt i* the oontcatioo of the managamertf tjjat• 7 4 04 T HE G A Z E T TE O? I N D IA : D E C- 8, - 2 0 0 1/ A G R A H A Y A NA 1 7, 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )] concerned workman. There was no reason on the part oi the concerned workman to prefer petition before the Workman's Compensatim C'jniiniss'op.er if fie management knowing about hir, p!iys:cal position would show their syrcp?ihel:c attitude towards him. This attitude will expose clearly how the manage- ment deal with the problems of the workman woirfc under them.

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001

S.O. 3350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihe In- dustrial Dispute Act, J947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award cf the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the~ Industrial Dispute between :he employers in relation to the management of CCL tad their workman, which was recleivecl by the CenL-al Government en 16-11-2001.

1 No. L-20Q12/353/94-IIKC-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute undei

Section 10(1) (d) of the 1.0. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 123 of 1995

PARTIES:

Ernployears in relation to the management of Topa Colliery ot M|s. CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : None.

On tohaJf of the emotoyers : Shri B. Joshi,

Advocate. from 1-1-91 till date and not regularising the workman Shri Raja Ram Karmakar in the post of Cap Lamp Issue Clerk is justi- fied ? li no;, to \vhi:|i relief the workman is entitled?"

7405- of prcmoion of a Lamp Fitter to-the post of Lamp Istue and Ro'urn Clerk in Ci. Gr. I ll the persons must possess minimum qualification of Matriculation and mwA pass dcpruvmencdl wiitlen and pra^Lcai test and should be selected by the Selection test, out of the Lsrr?p Fitter in Cat. IV and Cat. V. Disclos;ng this fact the tnariaqement further submitted that *he con- c;rned workman neither pos:e-",ed Matriculation certi- fi^ate or ¹szt equivalent from any reenfrni^ed Board of Eyarn'na'iops nor oassed' anv examination conduc- ted by the management acIiud^inR him suitable for provid'ng him the job of Clerical Post. Accordingly f!-i^> n?Pfinf*PT!8nt subm'i'ed t'""at "'he conoemed worK- man did n^t n^ssess remis'te av.aiiSca^'on reigns; on which he cn^d be nro^o'e^ to the nos* of Lamn T^ve and ^"'vm C\rr\ in H e r ' ^l Grrdc. W. Ac- co^fJri^-' the Tianatter^^'it fibmitted the t!ra''cr for fy^c-jiT'cr arj Award re"c"r*"n'.r th-*; cla:m of t'"-e cc>?ecrnsd wo'rlrman.

4, The t}r>i'n*s for i^^i^snn TTJ thi^, rr^^^^rg arer < .•pt/r>-"-{ +V^> TTsoT'^nrf>TT>^P* *-ar%i^r"j-1l *^ *-p*rY'ilrfv'vc\ h*S c<"—'"'"'"^ O^ iP'^r? T " > n |l Tcc^T* i f¹' ^ " Ic f l i o i ^ r /^ IY^^^T r^t^^-r "->*" *t-!~ mniw'>"1 1.1-1001 A ^ f ^ ' n A' +Ti^ fio-^".'>->-r>-"/T I V M -¹' " ! "" T-"r ^*-ci^rp^ -for t ^ i c ' n^ Awr-^r^i vr**h ^'r.^'-f"o" *<-> t ^e T7i**f.r ftr<—i S-¹9-R7 +n 30-1 9-QO i f '1 +o r f i m i n n™ T^'o qpn?!fa ^^ C ^^ ^ ^^ Tc<^"" f^1"r?^ '^'f^-¹ ^'^^o* ^*r*T*l 1.1.O1

•Dtcvlsiop of the cadre scheme applicable to E h M Personnel of Lamt) ro^rn. The rn''i'i^femon'f re'h- VY**PA thn'- Sfsf-tv T c^n Charter h ai^o pfi.ttR¹-nr>d he ;s m Cnt. HT. The Fitfer dsoVno- wl'-h Can L?mn are' in Cat. TTL TV and V. Th" ^i'ter -.'n r-^t. TTT FT"* he citPTjc'ent to tss* the level mu! si^cific ,1 in th? ba^e'¹"' js maintained. He is als^ rpou!rerl, to ma'iitq'n 'o"r bo^'i prescribed for nrorwr masnterin^ce of rprord^ nf th" Can Larno. The management ^•"."i^^h' st'bm'tfed thn* the noncerperi¹ w ork T ai a^l fit^ti Lamp Ch-argcri Fitter in Cat. I ll and never was pro- moted to Cat. IV Fit'er. The ni3iir"ement submitted ihaA the wcrkm?ra *n Cat. I ll CP.TI ^e promoted .to Cat. TV a^ter ob+ain:.np, 3 years of exner^nce in Cat. ITT on zcqvkiv.v proper knowl^d^s of: the hafter" ?nH oil. "J^fetv l^mrt bes'dss knowing the electrical cVcuits of the cap %mr"s ?i"d +he chafes. He vyw* hnvff alSo'full'lcrtowfed?e of 1% F JP feaJ"i-ps r "d .Or* T,nmr>. The management ^ ^ o c p^ ^hn* for rt-oma+inn of a workman as ^^ L " ^i F:fff*r in Cat. V he must possess experience of Cat. IV and must have minimum ot tires ycr.rs evperience ots aicli cost. After a denartmentr:¹ -memo-ion commit-, tee acrndw-d a Lamp F't'er ?r. Cot. IV for bis pr"- .rnotion to Cat. V he can oniv be promoted to Cat. V. The management also disclosed that for the purpose )"FCI^fON WITH PERSONS 5. It is seen that 'instils of (??vir.3 ample omorru- nitiss the concerned workman neither aprcared before the Tribunal nor submit-ed the rejoinder o'r document in support of bis cla;m. Even notices were sen? ro '•"he concerned¹ workman corss^rpjtive.^' bv Read. post v/:th AID but he <3'~rt not respond fo th.^ r;->me. ^Accor- &'~n^ly, as *hs 'ca:-:"3 is ^ ery c'.d one findii!" no other alternative way fhe same was closed, li was the claim cc the concerned workman thai, from 8-12-87 to 30-12-90 he worked as C?t" LPTIT; Fitter under ord^r of the mstiaTeraenT and thcea^'er he nho by order7406 THE GAZETTE OF IN&I&: I fc _a* 20017 AGfcAHAYANA I7, 1923 [PART iMfifc. 3<1fy| Cat. IV and Cat. V. It has been submitted by the management that the concerned workman had no requisite qualification which should demand tor his promotion to Cat. IV or to Cat. V. As such there was no scope on the part ol the management to give any promotion to the concerned workman. It is seen that the management in their pleading has clearly pointed out that the concerned workman in Cat. I ll is liable to get his promotion to Cat. IV and thereafter to Cat. V. The concerned workman in his pleading did not disclose anything to the effect that inspite of his having requisite qualification and experience the management refused to sivc any promotion. The con- cerned workman inspile of getting sufficient opportu- nity did not consider necessary to produce a single scrap of proper to show that he worked as Cup Lamp Issue Clerk wiih effect from 1-1-92. As such at this stage in absence of any cogent evidence there is no scope to pass amy order directing the management to regularise his service, Question of payment of diffe- rence of wages also definitely could be considered if it was established by ihe concerned workman that he worked in the higher category post under order of the management. I find no hesitation to say that the concerned workman inspite of petlinp sufficient oppor- tunity has failed¹ to establish this claim too. Accor- dingly after careful consideration of all the facts e|nd circumstances I hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to tret any relief which he has prayed for by wav of Award. In the result, the following Award is rendered:—

"The action of the management of Topta Col- liery of C.C.L. in not navin? the difference of wages as Cap Lamp Fitter from 8-12-87 to 30-12-90 and as Cap I?sue Clerk from 1-1-91 till date and not regularising the workman Shri Rajs Rflm Karmakar in the oost of Cm Lamt> Issue Clerk is justified. Consenu-n^V, ths conrem?d workman is not entitled to get anv relief".

B. BTSWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O. 3351.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Indu'trW Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 19471. the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes- the award of the Penn-pl Government Industrial Tribunsil-cnm-Labovr Court, Nntmur, us shown in the Annexure in th? In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory a-id their work- man, which was received by the "Central Govern- ment on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-14ffll|7|99-lRtDU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Office!

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR F RESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxiena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-137/2000 General Manager, Ordnance Factory

AND

Shri D. N. Bawane, General Secretary.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-Sectiun 2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has re- ferred tihis dispu+e for adjudication vide order No. L - 1 4 0 l l / 7 / 9 9 / T R ( D U ), dated 25-8-99 on the fol- lowing schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management, namely General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chanda, District Chandrapur in not recog- nising and not allowing the elected repre- sentatives of Employees Union, Ordnance Factory, Chanda to represent the grievances of employees of the industrial establishment is justified ? If not, what directions arc "necessary in the matter ?"

The General Secretary, Employees Union Ordnafflce Factory, Chanda had submitted Statement of Claim before"C.G.I.T. Court No.-TT at Mumbai that Gene- ral Body Meeting of Employee Union Ordnance Fac- tory, Chanda was held on 14-10-98 and new Exe- cutive B'ldy wa's elected. The new Executive Rody wss headed by S, L, Gandhi, President. The Gene- ral Manager of Ordnance Factory cHd not Cooperate witlh the new Executive Body, The General Manager evaded the recognition of the new Executive Body and the General Meeting could not be called to hold meeting after 14-10-98. The man^pement stated in Written Statement that the matter falls under Section ?RC1VA> of Bombay Industrial Relation Act and the C.G.I.T. Court has no jurisdiction to hear it.

Th? file ws n-n^ved from CO I.T. Court N>e case wns npain adionrnrrt to 2Q-1-2001. No affidavit was filed from the side of tb(r union in supoort of their claim. The management representative also took time to •ribmit law on the

74Q7.

point of jurisdiction of this Court to decide the dispute but he did not submit any law.

The case was adjourned to 1-3-2001 and 30-4-2001.

After that both the parties arc absenting.

The dates 7-6-2001, 21-6-2001, 24-7-2001, 23-8-2001, 13-9-2001, 17-10-2001 and 19-10-2001 Were fixed. Both the parties absented regularly after 7-6-2001. Neituer tne counsel ior wiorKuian s union submitted any affidavit in support of their claim nor anybody appear to represent the management.

In view of the above facts no evidence has been produced by any party. No law has been submitted from the management on the point of jurisdiction.

Thus the parties have not produced any evidence on the matter in dispute. In these circumstances the reference should be disposed of for want of evidence.

ORDER

No evidence has been produced by the parties on the issue mentioned in the schedule of the reference.

The reference is disposed of for want of prose- cution. No evidence has been produced by the work- men in support of their claim.

The reference is therefore disposed of for want of prosecution and the evidence.

Date: 19-10-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001 S.O. 3352.—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, Jabalpur as shown, in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Senior Quality Assurance Establishment and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-14012/31/93-IR(DU)T KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer 3630 GT/2001—28.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/240/97

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai,

Shri Vijay Kumar, S/o Shri Prancis Paul, 510, Christian Colony, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur,

. .. Applicant.

Versus

Senior Quality Assurance Establishment. PO GCF, Jabalpur.

.. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 1st day of November, 2001 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-14012/3 l/93-IR(DU) dated 20-8-97 has referred The following dispute for ad- judication by this tribunal^—

"Whether the action of the management of Senior Quality Assurance Establishment, GCF, Jabalpur in treating the workman Shri Vijay Kumar to be involved in criminal cases and terminating him on the basis of the Police Verification Report vide order dated 16-2-93 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that Quality Assurance Establishment, Ministry of Defence Gov- ernment of Tndia issued notification for filling up vacant post of unskilled labour reserved for ST candidates. The employment exchange, Jabalpur sponsored the name of the workman who appeared for interview in March, 1992. As per information of the employ- ment exchange he appeared for interview conducted by GCF, Jabalpur on 27-3-92. He successfully cleared the interview and the management issued appointment order dated 25-4-92 to him. He ioined his duty rm 28-4-92. By order dated 16-2-93, his armoinfment was cancelled on the basis of character verification report of the police. Before issuing the said order, neither any show cause notice was issued nor anv DE was conducted against him. The police verification report is absoluicly incorrect and devoid of any substance.

3. The workman further alleges that he was never convicted by anv competent court for committing any crime. Not a single charge was established against him in the court of law. A tv^on becomes disentitled for getting emrjlovment in Government service onlv if he is cnnvicteH bv competent court for committing some criminal offence. He was never convicted by any court. Merely by filing the challan in a court bv the police, it is not sufficient to establish the offence against anv person. He beionsed to ST community and therefore he was rightly appointed as a mazdoor by the management, The terminated order passed by the management against him is illegal and deserves7408 THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : D(EC, 8','20Q1/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [FART I I — S E C/ 3 (ii)] to be set aside. No compensation was given to him according to the provisions of Section 25-F of the T.D. Act, 1947. He is therefore entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

man has also admitted in his statement that 45 crimi- nal cases were registered against him by the police. Jn all these criminal cases, the. workman was acquit- ted of all the charges by the competent court. The management has not been able to prove that the workman was convicted for any criminal offence. Merely registration of criminal case and filing the chal- lan against the workman is nnt enough to disentitle him for getting employment in any Government ser- vice. The appointment order dated 24-5-92 ( M - l) was issued to the workman by the management and in persuance of this order, he joined his dutv on 28-5-92. Subsequently his services \iere terminat- ed on 16-2-93 on the basis of police verification report received from District Magistrate, Jabalpur. The work- man has not hern convicted for any offence by any court. Jn view of this fact, this order of termination from service dated 16-2-93 is b?i;i in law. It is there- fore held that the management wrongly held the work- man not fit to be given employment for the post the appointment order was issued to him. The management illegally passed the order of termination against him on 16-2-93. Both the issues are answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 3 ;

In view of my findings given on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, it is held that the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment without back wages.

8. Issue No. 5 :

4. The case for the management is that the work- man was never appointed as worker as claimed by him. He was not an employee of the management and therefore the relationship of master and servant never existed between the parties. He was never issued any appointment order as stated by him. An offer of ap- pointment was issued to him vide letter dated 25-4-92. Some terms and conditions for the ap- pointment were offered to the workman for complet- ing the formalities for getting the appointment. On 29-4-92, Police Verification Report forms were issued to the workman for filling upto get police verification report regarding his conduct. These forms were sent to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur for verifying the character of the workman. The character verification report was received from District Magistrate with a note that 45 criminal cases were pending against the workman. The workman had submitted a false decla- ration that no criminal case was pending against him. Due to the false declaration and pendency of 45 cri- minal cases in the criminal court, the workman was not found fit to be appointed as Mazdoor by the management. The management therefore issued an intimation on 16-2-93 to the workman informing him that he was not found suitable for giving appointment for the post he was sponsored by the employment exchange. The termination of the workman does not amount to retrenchment as claimed by him. The man- agement was not required to issue statutory notice nor to pay the retrenchment compensation according to the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

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

On the reasons stated above, it is held that the workman is legally entitled to get employment for the post for which order of appointment was issued by the management on 24-5-92. The order of termina- tion from service passed by the management against the workman on 16-2-93 is herebv quashed. The workman shall be reinstated as unskilled workman for which he was found fit in the. interview. On the nrin- ciple of No Work, No Pay, he shall not be entitled to back wages. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the workman and against the management.

9. Copy of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

1. Whether the action of the management dated 16-2-93 in holding workman not fit for fhe appointment on the basis of police verifica- tion report is just and proper ?

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer 2. Whether the order of termination passed by the management against the workman is jusi and propej 7

3. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment with other consequential benefits,

4. Relief and costs ?

fi. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 :

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2001

S.O. 3353.—In pursu:in-e of Ser+ini 17 of the Industrial Dif.ir.ites Act, 1947 H4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes ths award of the It is an admitted fact that the workman belongs to 5T communiw. His name was sponsored hy the emp- loyment exchanpc, Jabalpur to appear for interview on 27-3-92 for the post of unskilled labour, Dunn¹* the interview, the management found him fit for issu- ing appointment order for the post of unskilled worker. The appointment order was issued to tta workman with some terms and conditions which were accepted by him. After police verification it was found that 45 criminal cases were registered against the work- man by various police station of Jabalpur. The work- Labour Court Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to fhe management of Southern Command Stationery Depot and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-14O12|32|94-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SMT. S. V. SUVARNA, PRESIDING OFFICER, II LABOUR COURT AT PUNE Reference I DA No. 69 of 1996

(1) The Commanding Officer, Southern Command Stationery Depot, Pune-411001.

(2) MGACC Souihern Command, Pune-1.

, First party.

AND

. , n party, Shri Karkala S. Reddy, C|o Shri G. R. Salunkhe, Southern Command Stationery, Ghourpuri Road, Pune-1 SUB : Reinsaitement with full back wages and conti- nuity of service,

APPEARANCE :

Mrs. Khare Advocate for II party.

Mr, Deshpande, Advocate far I party.

AWARD

This reference is referred to the Labour Court Pune by Government of India Minis.'ry of Labour New Delhi, vide order No. L-I4QI2|32'94 1 (P.C)fDU) dated 26-2-96 th; Central Govemnienf was of the opinion thai industrial d;spute exists belween the em- ployer in relation to the management of Southern Command r.nd their v/orkrann in respect of the Fchedule. Therefore the Central Government in exer- cise of powers conferred by Claupe-D Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 referred the said dispute to this Labour Court In the Schedule of the reference it is mentic^jd that, "whether th? ection of the Mannjrrr'ent of Southern Command Stationery Depot, Pune in ter- minating the services of Karkala Reddy is justified and legol ?, if not to whrt rell-fr, the workman is en- titled to."

The second party has filed his statement of clsjm at Ex. 5 and contended that he in worV;ntr n n^r ibp direct control of first party i.e. Commanding Officer Southern Command, Stationery Depot, Pune end his services were terminated by tlhs firsr party from 25-7-92. He has therefore, requested that he should be reinstated, Tt is also plecdej that Ihe first party No. 1 and 2 ar^ the departments of Ministry rf Defence. Central Government of India. The second party joined service at A¹'r Force Academy Hydera- bad "as Anti Malaria Lascar from 21-6-1988 he worked thej'r til! December 1988. Thereafter by order dated 14-12-88- he was transferred to first

7409- party—i.e. Southern Command Stationery Depot. He joined his service on 25-'/-y2 and he was m conu- nuous service of tlhe first party. It is also contended ihat vide letter dated 2i-i-i>l lirst party No. 2 teimi- naied the services of second party without assigning any particular reason and no opportunity to defend was given. However, the first party by letter dated 2-12-92 communicated to the ottice of Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) that services of second party were terminated for habitual and long unauthorised absence. It is contended that he was on leave but denied that he was on unauthorised leave. In May- june, iyS9 he was on sanctioned leave for his own marriage. Thereafter he was on leave for sickness on the most of the occasions, besides some domestic reasons. On each and every occasion of illness he forwarded applications for leave and submitted pro- per medical certificates also. He also made an application in 1990 to give him posting at any of the places in Andhra Pradesh near his native town, which will enable him to attend the work as well a" to look after his family.

It is further submitted that second party was away from the work on certain occasions for just and proper reasons and he gave application for leave and the 'leave was sanctioned. He never remained absent unauthorisedly and his services have been terminated without giving opportunity to defend. Therefore, pray- ed that the termination of his services be held as illegal and he should be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages.

First party No. 1 Comanding Officer, Southern Command Stationery Depot, Pune has filed its W.S. at Ex, 12. It is contended that second party was habi- tually absentee. More than sufficient tune and oppor- tunity was granted to him by writing several letters, but the second party did not report for duty and therefore on recommendations of the O.C. on 23rd July, 1992 the services of the second party were ter- minated by MGAOC H.Q., Southern Command under provision to sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Aftei the termination the second party failed to exercise his right to prefer the appeal/representation against the alleged termination within a period of 45 days to DGOS Army H.Q. and rushed to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Pune vide letter dated 27-7-92. First party No. 1 has denied that prior to termination no oportunity of defence was given to the second party. That in view of the provisions u/s 12(4) (5) r/w Clause (d) of sub-section(l) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 the present case has been referred to this court. According to first party No, 1 the appropriate Government in this case is the Central Government and not the State Government It is next submitted that the Army Stationery Depot are not governed under the Factory Act and they have been classified as Misc. Units. The case oi second party does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Pune and this reference which is sent to this Court for adjudication by Asstt. Com- missioner of Labour, Pune is not correct and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try to adju- dicate upon the points under the reference or the 7410 TJJE X&ZMl'lh T3F 3NE3A :UEC. 8. 2001/ A0RAHATANA 17, 1923 IPAKTH-^SKX 3tfi)]

at Ex. 53. The first party No. 1 has examined one, Mr. Rajiv at Ex. 54 and thereafter given apurshis that they do not wish to adduce joore oral and docu- mentary evidence in the above matter at Ex. 55 through their Advocate S. B. Deshpande. Both the Advocates have advanced oral arguments before me. Issue No. 1 :—

statement of claim of second party. The status of Second party was civilian. For habitual unauthorised absence from the duty even during the probation period, his services were terminated under the orders of the appointing authority i).e. Major General Army Ordnance Corps. Head Quaters, Southern Command, Pune-1 in terms of sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Cen- tral Civil Services (temporary services) Rules, 1965. On termination of his service, second party was ex- pected to exercise his right to prefer appeal within a period of 45 days before DGOS Army H.Q. i.e. Appel- late Authority. But he did not avail of the said remedy provided under the rules and he was required to file a petition against his alleged termination before the Hon. Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay which he has failed to do or move the Civil Court. However the reference has been moved before this Labour Court and this Labour Court has no jurisdi- tion to entertain and adjudicate upon the reference and it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted by F.P. No, 1. that statement of claim suffers from mis- joinder as well as non-joinder of necessary parties be- cause the Officer Commanding himself is the local official Head under the jurisdiction of Commander, Pune sub-area and as such by himself he cannot de- cide or redress the grievances of the second party. DMR & F exercises the functional control and admi- nistrative functions are controlled by the Head Quar- ters, Command Area and Sub-Area Commander Stationary Depot, Pune vide letter No. 2(2/87/1415/ D(S&C) dated 12-6-89. Therefore, it is the case of first party No. 1 that the reference should be rejec- ted.

. :_|

Ld. Adv. Deshpande has challenged maintainability of the reference by contending that the Stationery Depot F.P. No. 1 is jiot an 'industry' because the appropriate authority in this case is from the defence and the Ministry of Defence and its various establish- ments do not fall within the definition of 'industry' u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Therefore the reference should be rejected. It is next submitted by Advocate Deshpande tor first party that assuming for the sake of arguments that hrst party No. 1 is an 'industry' yet the reference cannot lay before the State Govern- ment on the basis of the report given by the Con- ciliation Officer only. The first party No. 1 Stationery Depot is a Unit, which is not registered under the Factories Act. The person concerned in this reference is a Government servant and the appropriate authority is the Major General, Civil Services and the Central Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the reference. It is next submitted by Advocate Deshpande that fail- ure report which is given by the Asstt. Labour Com- missioner, Central, Pune vide letter dated 8-9-92 is without giving any reasons and the Asstt. Labour Commissioner of Labour did not consider Ihe conten- tion of the first Paity mid tberfore, conclusion report is not valid report u/s 12(6) of the I.D. Act. It is also contended by Advocate Deshpande that if the reference itself is in contravention of fhe provisions of the letter the same cannot be a legal reference and this Court cannot assume jurisdiction of a reference which is void ab initio. Ld. Adv. Deshpande has also pointed out to me the order of reference and submit- ted that it is a cyclostyle form which is signed by the Desk Officer and there is filling up of the gaps in the form of the order and there is no application of mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Pune. In these circumstances, it is con- tended by Ld. Adv. Deshpande that the case of sec- ond party is not covered under the provisions of the I.D. Act.

The first party No. 1 :—Commanding Officer, Southern Command Stationery Depot, Pune at Ex. 13 moved an application for framing and determining the issue for objection to the jurisdiction. This appli- cation came to be hotly contested by both the parties and order came to be passed by my Ld. Predecessor on 8-1-97 rejecting the application moved by the F.P. No. 1. This order of my Ld. Predecessor was chal- lenged before the Hon'ble H.C., Bombay in W.P. No. 1331 of 1998 and also in letters Patent Appeal. How- ever, the matter has been remanded back to this Court for rejecting the reference on merits. Thereafter the following issues have came to be framed by this Court at Ex. 39 which are as under : —

issues

rinumgs No

Does the first party prove that

the reference is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction ?

Yes

Does the second party prove that his services were terminated . illegally by the first party ?

3 T}rtes flip ^ecotiii narfv tirove thnt

W VW till* fSV^UHU ^ / mi V L / AWt L1JUL L **tJj AW~

he is entitled lor the i reliefs claimed ? w

nstatement ith 50 per cent back wages.

As below

What award?

REASONS

The second party workman has_ examined himsdf at Ex, 40 and closed his evidence by giving purshls

In reply to these submissions Ld. Adv. Khare ap- pearing for second party has referred to the provisions of the I.D. Act, Section 10(2) and pointed out that the Court has given the powei to adjudicate upon the dispute and the reference is made to this Court under the above section. It is further pointed out that the Ld, Predecessor of this Court has decided the issue about the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate the present reference on an application moved by the Officer Commanding, Southern Command Stationery Depot, Pune i.e. F.P. No. ] and in this application the first party No. 1 prayed for framing and deter- mining the preliminary issue for objection to the juris- diction and all the points which have been made by Ld. Adv. Deshpande were pleaded in the said appli- cation at Ex. 13 and on 8-1-97 after hearing both the parties at length the application came to be rejected and this order was also challenged before the Hon'blc High Court where it has been hcJd by Their LordsWp7411 to the order passed by My Ld, Predtcessor on the application at nx. 13 moved by the bxu party No. 1 cnaUenging the maintaiuiabilny of the reference on the grouna ihat the appropriate Government is the Ctntrai tiovt. and the reference made to his Court for adju- dication of the industrial dispute based on the reriort dt. 16-9-94 submitted by the Asstt. Labour Commr. (C) Pune is not legal. 1 am of the view that although the dispute relates to the defence the appro- priate Govt, in this case is the Staite Govt, because the test of determining which of the State has juris- diction to make the reference u[s. 10 of the I.D. Act 1947 is that where th;re is a seperate establishment and the workman is working in that separate establish- ment the dispute would arise at that place as held in case of Workman v|s. Rangvilan Motor FVt. Ltd. re- ported in AIR-1967- SC Pg-1040.

ihat petitioner i.e. Commanding Officer. Southern Command Stationery Depot and MOAOC. Southern Command, Pune-1 can raise the said contention after full adjudication of the matter in appeal or writ peti- tion which may be filed by the petitioner. Therefore, according to Ld. Adv. Khare, the said issue has already been decided and since the Hon'blc Court has directed to this court to decide the said issue the submissions of Ld. Adv. Deshpande cannot bo accepted. It is next submitted by Adv. Khare thai on going through the Schedule under the I.D. Act "Scheduled" u|s 2(N) gives the list of 'industry' which are declared as public Utility services and the defence establishment is cover- ed in Sr. No. 8 of the Schedule I and the management witness Mr. Rajiv of Southern Command Stationery Depot, Punc admitted in cross examn. that the first party is an establishment which comes under the Minis- try of Defence and therefore since the defence estab- lishment is an 'industry' and it is an admitted position that the Stationery Depot is an establishment therefore the provisions of the I.D, Act will apply to the first party No. 1 and hence the reference is maintainable as the first party is covered by the definition of 'industry' of Section 2(J) of the I.D. Act. It is next submitted by Adv. Khare that this reference has been sent to this Court as per the Government Notification by the appropriate Government i.e. the Central Gov- ernment and therefore this Court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Adv. Khare also referred to the. provisions of Section 12(5) Of the I.D. Act and pointed out that if on considera- tion of the report submitted by the concilation officer the appropriate government if satis- fies that there is a case for reference to the Labour Court it con make a reference. Ld. Adv. Khare also referred to the definition of Section 2(K) of the I.D. Act and submitted that since there is n dispute of difference between the workman and the empjJover v.hich is connected with hvs employment then this Court alco has jurisdiction to decide this issue. She further submitted that if we refer to the preliniinarv title of the T.D. Act, 1947, it can be seen that fhe I.D. Act extends i0 the whole of India. There- fore the I.D. Act 1947 is the Central Act and the provisions of this Act apply to the State Government and also the Central Government. Therefore, the submission of Ld. Adv. Deshpande that since the appropriate authority is the Central Government and the second party is a Government servant this refe- rence is not tenable and it can be only decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not hold good because u's. 10 of the I.D Act if the appropriate Govt, is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exist it may eft any time in writing referred the dispute to ihe Labour Court, and she also referred to the provi- sions of Sec. 10fl)(A) where the Central Government can also refer any Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court in respect of the rnsiters fajlling in Second Schedule of the I.D. Act 1947. In this case, since the dispute touches the matter pertaining to termina- tion of service of the second party and the workman has asked for the relief of reinstatement, it is con- tended this court has the jurisdiction to decide the reference in respect of the termination of services ot the second party.

In the present reference laldmittediy the second party was midally employed as Anti Malaria Lascar at Air Force Academy Hyder bad from 21-6-1988 and thereafter he was posted to Southern Command Stationery Depot. Fune i.;. F.P. No. 1 w.e.f. 14-12-88 and kept on probation for two years i.e. till 1990 and during the yeair 1990 he was granted six days extra ordinary leave without paying and his services came to be terminated under the order of the^Major General, Army Ordnance Corps. Head Quarters, Southern Command, Punc-L In view of these facts it can be seen that the second party has been working at Pune Stationalry Depot and his salary was paid by the first party No. 1 hip leave was sanctioned by F.P. J^To. 1. He was under the supervision and control of the first party No. 1. Therefore, as the cause of action for terminating the services of the second party on account of his absence has arisen in Pune the appropriate government in this case is the State Government. The contention of Ld. Adv. Desh- pande for first party that this court has no jurisdic- tion to decide this dispute as the Defence Ministry is the employer and controlled by the Central Govern- ment and u|s 2(A) fhe appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any 'industry' carried on by or under the authority of the Central Govt, is the Central Government and not the State Government. This submission does not appeal to me because Southern Command Stationerv Depot is a separate establishment which is admitted by the first party's witness Mr. Raiiv in tlhe cross examn. and second party was working in Stationery Depot which is a separate establishment and the dispute arose at Pune therefore in my view there is B| nexus between the dispute -ird the territory of Pune therefore State Govt, is ihn appropriate Govern- ment. I have also read the judgement reported in 1975-2 LLJ-Pg. 336-SC-HLndustan Aeronautics Ltd. V|s. Their workman, in the given case, the Govt, of West Bengal had referred the dispute between the C Barrack Pore Branch in West Bengal of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Their workman. The compe- tency of the- government to refer to the reference was challenged on the ground that the appropriate govern- ment was the Central Government and not the State Government and alternatively it was the Karnataka Government because the Barrack-Pore Branch was functioning in the Bangalore divisional office of the company it wteis held that the appropriate government it the State Govt, within the geographical limiti of On going through the submissions of both the sides on the issue of jurisdiction it is first accessary to refer74U THE GAZETTE OF I N ^A i OIK; a, 2Q01/AQEAHAXANA 17, 1023 [PART IJ—SBC. 3 ( i i^ winch the industry is s\tua,ted. Therefore following this judgement of Hon, Supreme Court in this case although the Ministry of Dclcncc is the Central Go- vernment, however, the second party workman lies been transferred and posted at Southern Command Stationery Depot Pune, his services are terminated at Pune by the Manager General of Southern Command. Therefore applying the above ratio to this case, the appropriate Govt, is the State Gcvt. and the reference has been rightly referred to this Court for adjudica- tion.

It is also pertinent to note that u|s 39(A) of the I.D. Act which is a Central Act applicable to the whole of India, it has been laid down that the appro- priate Government may, by notification in the official gazette direct any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made thereunder shall, in relation to such matters Find subject to such conditions if any as may be specified in the direction, be exercisa'blc also.

(a) Where tflie appropriate Govt, is Central Govt. by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Govt, or by State Government, or by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, as may b© speci- fied in the notification ; and

(b) Where the appropriate Govt, is a¹ State Govt. by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Govt, as ma/ be specified in the notification.

7.413

'cV'rec'Jy intirL-sicd in" tlic dispute between the. pr.nies und ihuy will be allcctea by the result of the case. Thereiorc thsy are the correct parties. Therefore in this case, I am of the vjew that the reference is main- tainable. Accordingly I answer Issue No. 1 in nega- tive.

7414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC 8. 2001/ AGttAMAXANiL 17, iy^3 LfAat it^S^/SflDJ

Both these judgements are relied upon to show that even if there are service regulations still the industrial Employment Standing Orders will apply and without following due process of law the services of second party cannot be terminated. Ld, Adv. Khare has also relied upton the following judgements reported in 1P79-I LLJ-Pg. 257 SC and 1995-1 LLJ Pg. 716 Bombay High Court. In both these judgements it is observed that termination without enquiry is illegal.

(3) 1998-1 CLR-1205 Bombay High Court in this judgement it has been held that failure to join on duty on expiry of the leave the employer is required to hold an enquiry. Ld. Adv. Khare has also relied upon the judgement of 1978-SC-I-Pg-154.

Ld. Adv. Deshpande has submitted thait second party could not point out from his evidence that his leave was sanctioned in fact according to the first parts leave applications were sent by the father of the second pairty workman and he was called upon to submit the certificate from the district hospital which was not sent by the workman. Therefore under the service rules the first party was within its power to terminate the services of the second party, Therefore the termination is legal and proper. Second party in his deposition hais clarified in the cross examn that the first party had informed him that the application signed by his father was not legal but the second riarty stated thait at that itme hs was in the hospital. There- fore just because the father of the workman was sending leave applications in the circumstances that the workmajn was in the husjidtal those leave applica- tions cannot be over-looked because what is to be seen in whether the second party has intimated the first party about his absence from work and the reasons for the same. The le+ter written bv the Officer Com- manding dt. 18-3-96 addressed to the Presiding Offi- cer Labour Court in resnect of the matter of the secdnd nnrtv the letter clearlv men*ir>n" that the second inrty hnd renor+erl for dntv on 2?-7-Q2 but he vra<; rsnt allo- """p(i *ft i(vn rintv. This a^t nn th*- nnrt of the first nartv n ko efiowe tTie. malnfirir intention liecflniWi wifhrmt (TiTTi^fr prMvirtiirpfv tn tfic ?i*rnr\fl nnTUr to m\>c e x n l a- T'n+ion when he came to ?din for duty he was not allowed.

that the workman was on duty sanction leave, and there is no dispute about the same. Learned Advo- cate Deshpande has submitted while referring to Ex. 91 collectively at page-2 of the list Ex. 42 that dur- ing the years 1989 and 1990 the workman was ab- sent for 132 days and vide letter dated 8-3-91 referr- ed above the second party was directed to report to the Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Ranga- reddy District Andhra Pradesh for through medical check up. But instead of getting checked up from the medical officer the workman went on submitting medical certificates from other doctors. Therefore the certificates were not admitted and accepted by the first party No. 1 because they were not from the medical officer of the district hospital. In the cross examination the second parry at page-50 has clarified why he could not submit the medical certificate from the district hospital at Fangareddy. He has stated in cross as follows. "I did not send the report of the Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Ranga- reddy because it was closed and I went to Usamaniya Hospital. I do not know whether the first party did not accept the certificate given by him of Usamaniya Hospital. Thercfoie from the documents on record Learned Advocate Khere has submitted that the reasons tor remaining absent by the second party was on account of his sickness and the second party has stated in his Chief examn. at page-2 and 3 that whenever he was on sanctioned leave and he was on leave on account of sickness of his mother and him- self he has submitted medical certificate and applica- tion. He has also stated that whenever he has ex- tended his leave he has given leave application. He has also referred to the documents filed at Ex. 42, which ar^ the applications for extension of leave dt. 7-U-91 sent by Regd. Post. A. D. bearing acknow- ledgement of the first party No. 1 the medical certifi- cate of Usamaniya Hospital at Sr, Nos. 8 to 12 these documents are marked Ex. 44 colly. The second pur"y has discbarj*ed his burden by proving before the court that the reasons for his absence was genuine and the certificates ^iven by the second party are not ctnllenced nor the first party could prove that they have written any letter in the second party about the documents at Ex. 44 colly, submitted by him, which arc the medical certificates of Usamaniya Hospital challeneging the same and calline upon the workman to prove the said medical certificate by issuing him a "how cause. Therefcvc the contention of the F. P. No, 1; that the termination of services of the second party was for his absence, the said action is taken by wav of ;in after thought for the first time before the court because there is no reason mentioned in the termination order stating that the services of the second party ar-j i*:mliWi:d fci his absence. LcLined Advocate Khare has reltcd upon the following judee- nvnts in support of her above- contention that the termination for absence without holding any enquiry h illegal ar"1 nb in'tio void and against the principles of natural justice.

(1) 1991 T LLJ Pp. 260—M. D. Vijayakumar & Ors. Vk Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board.

(2) 1991-ITLU-Pn. 65—Jacob M. Puthuparam- bil & Ors. Vis, Kerala Water Authority and ors.

The Hon'bie S. C in the case rpported in 2001-T TXJ PR. 7 between Scoo'cr India Ltd Vs Mahamad Yakub find another have held that absence of workman from div*v without Jeave— no termination on the basis of Standing Order? can follow on such absence from duty—held on the facts that there was retrenchment without following the provisions of law, It Is pertinent to note that although the first party No. 1 have terminated the airwict"¹ of the second party under t^e pro- visions of Rule (1) of Rule (5) of the Central Civil Services (temporary services) Rule 1965 on 23-7-92 when the workman was on duty nnd after finishing his duty hours') he was handed over the termination letter These eervice rules are srbitrarv nnd violnt've of the principles of ra'urnl justice be- came while isiu-ng the termination order the second mriv was nnt even nii'd one months notice nay or his leiral dues. The frp-t mrtv No 1 Ms not nrodncd any doenm-nt before nv to 'how that th** b^lflncc nnvm^nt wm mad- to |f>" "econd nartv. On noinff through pub nile 1 of Rnlo 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rule 1965, the services of temporary government servant, who is not in quasi-perma- nent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notics in writing by Government servant or by the appointing authority and the period for such notice shall be one month. Tn this case, the second party workman has deposed that from June 1988 till July 1992 he worked contiguously and the day he was terminated he was on d-ity and the letter of termination was given to him in his hand on 23-7-92 and7415 ANNEXURE

mere is no reuaun uiciuiuiicu in me LciuiiLiciiiuii ICLIGI. r*u

enquiry was held and no chargeshect was given to him. He also stated that only beforo the Labour Officer he came to know that he has been terminated because of absence and prior to that he was not informed. Therefore even if the Central Civil service rules for temporary services is taken into consideration. From these statements made in chief examn. which are gone uncontroverted it is very clear that no appropriate notice of one month was jtiven, to the second party. Therefore the whole action is arbitrary and illegal and following the judgements of the Hon'blc S. C, referred above and the other judgements given, I am of the view that the action of the management in terminating the services of the second party is illegal and not proper. Accordingly I answer Issue No. 2.

With regard to the reliefs claimed in this reference the second party lias demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and with full backwages. The second party has deposed that while terminating him no retrenchment compensation or legal dues were given to him and after termination he could not get employment anywhere else and for his maintenance he is doing work on daily wages. After this statement has been made in chief examination there is no rebuttal in cross not the first party No. 1 could produce any document to show that the second party was gainfully employed. However, in the present case since the second party has stated that he was doing work on daily wages and litigation has also been protracted for a long time. I could grant 50 per cent of backwages to the second party with consequential benefits and accordingly I pass the following award,

AWARD

1. Reference is allowed.

2. The first parties are directed to reinstate the second party on his original post with continuity of service and 50 per cent of backwages with consequential benefits w.e.f. 23-7-92.

3. The first parties to comply with this order within four weeks from today.

SMT. S. V. SUVARNA, Presiding Officer Pune :

Date : 11-6-2001

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2001 S.O. 3354.—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 Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Gun and Shell Factory and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 21-11-2001.

[No. L-14012|75|2000-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer 3630 GI/2001—29.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 14 of 2001

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of the General Manager, Gun and Shell Factory.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma.—Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES -.

On behalf of Management.—None. On behalf of Workman.—None.

STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Gun and Shell.

AWARD

Ey Order No. L-14012;?5|2000|IR(DU) dated 23-3-2001 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal lor adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Gun and Shell Factory, Corripore Calcutta in terminating the services of Sh. Tapan Bagchi w.e.f. 7-2-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled ?"

2. When the case is called out today, none appears for either of the parties. It appears from record that from the very beginning non-one is appearing for the workman, nor any step is taken on his behalf for proceeding with the matter, although the manage- ment has appeared. Since the workman was not ap- pearing, the management was directed to file written statement, but on earlier occassions they prayed for time to file the same and today the management also does not appear to file its written statement.

3. In the circumstance, it becomes evident that the parties have no interest left to pursue the matter and it requires to be disposed of as a case of no dispute.

4. Accordingly, a "No Dispute" Award is passed and the reference is disposed of. Dated, Kolkata, The 12th November, 2001,

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer.

U\6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : H8C. ", 2001/ AORAHAYANA 17, 1V23 [PAKT H - 4 a c; 3(fl)l

jxew Delhi, the 20th November, 2001 S.O. 3355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubanes- war (Orissa) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the National Aluminium Com- pany Ltd. and their workrrien, received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-29012|55]2000-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 19|2000

Date of concluding of the hearing 15th Oct. 2001

Date of Passing Award 1st November, 2001 BETWEEN :

The Management of The General Manager, National Aluminium Commny Limited, Smelter Plant, Angul-759145." -. 1st Party- Management.

AND

Their Workmen, represented through the. Working President, NALCO Karrnachari, Scrngh (INTUC), Nalco Nagar, Angul-759145. 2nd Patty-Union.

APPEARANCES :

Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu, Chief Manager (HRD), Smelter Plant, NALCO, Angul. • - For the 1st Party- Management.

None. For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-sec- tion 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29012|55|2000|IR(M), dated 11-09-2000 :—-

"Whether the action of the Management of NALCO (Smelter) by reducing Festival Holidays from 7 to 6 is justified ? If not, to what relief the Workmen are entitled ?"

2. The 2nd Party-Union has filed the Claim Statement, wherein they have alleged that the 1st Party-Management be directed to follow the guidelines of the Certificate Standing Order and allow the employees to avail 07 days as Festival Holidays.

3. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st Party-Management, it is pleaded that, as per the provision of law, they are obliged to dec- lare 04 National Holidays from the calendar year and as r>er the amendment of Orissa Industrial Establishment (National & Festi- val) Holidays Act, 1969, 1st May is to be declared as another National Holiday so ac- cordinglv the 1st Party-Management has en- hanced the National Fridays from 3 days to 4 days since 1990. The 1st Party-Management denied the festival holidays have been reduc- ed by them.

4. On the above pleading of th? nnrties, the following Issues have been settled.

1. Whether the action of the Manage- ment of NALCO (Smelter) bv re- ducing Festival Holidays from 7 to 6 is justified ?

2. If not to what relief the Workmen are entitled ?

7417

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. I.

5. The reference was received by this Tri- bunal 28-9-2000. Issues were settled on 10-8-2001. On that date, direction was given to both the parties to file their documents and to lead evidence if any in support of their case. Thereafter no step has been taken by the. 2nd Party-Union. Accordingly, the 2nd Party- Union was set exparte on 10-10-2001. The dispute has been raised at the instance of the 2nd Party-Union, so the onus lies on the 2nd Party-Union to establish that, the 1st Party-Management has followed the guidelines of the Certified Standing Order. When no evidence has been adduced and when the 2nd Party-Union has not come to the Tribunal to submit their case before this Tribunal it can not be said that there has been any violation of the Certified Standing Order by the 1st Party-Management. In absence of any mate- rials this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the action of the 1st Party-Management by re- ducing Festival Holidays from 7 to 6 is justi- fied. Hence, this Issue is answered in favour of the 1st Party-Management

ISSUE NO. II.

6. In view of my above findings given in respect of Issue No. I, the 2nd Party-Union is not entitled for any relief.

7. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th November, 2001 S.O. 3356.—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, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.I.O.P, and their workman, which was. received by the Central Government on 19-11-200-1.

[No. L-29012/24/92-IRCM)] B. M- DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/227/92

Presiding Officer : Shri K, M. Rai.

8 workmen, through The Secretary, Bhartiya Khadaq Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), PO Kirandul, District Bastar.

-.. - Applicant.

Versus

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

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of November, 2001 1. The Government of Indiaj Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-29Q12/24/92-IR(Misc.) dated 19th November, 1992 has referred the following dispute for adjudication.by this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of BIOP Dep. No. 14 Kirandul in denying depart- mentalisation of the eight workmen mention- ed in the annexure as per the settlement dated 22-4-91 is justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?" and "Whether the action of the management of BIOP Dep. 14, Kirandul in recovering from the arrears due to the workmen donations/ contribution for the two unions as per, the decision taken by the committee of both the unions operating in the establishment justified ? If not, to what relief the work- men are entitled ?"

2. The case for the Union is that the.8 workers namely Budhu, S/o Shri Hima, Shri Lakrna S/o Shri Aytoo, Shri Lakma S/o Shri Gunda, Shri Podiya S/o Shri. Masa, Shri > Chamroo S/o Shri., Sukhlal, Smt. Rambati W/o Shri Ramadhari Shri Agtoo Ram and Shri Dashroo Ram S/o Shri Dower.were employed by the contractor ,M/s. Amrik ;Singh for the purposes of Fine Ore Wagon Loading and connected works ,of BIOP, Deposit 14, Kirandul, Distt. Bastar, for the Departmentalisation of fine ore labourers,, the manage- ment and their supporting Unions i.e. SKMS and MMWU had entered into an agreement, to curtail the number of labourers from 847 to 416. In order to get the maximum required strength.of workers to 416 for departmentalisation to an easy manner, they farfiet7418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to include the name or the said workers who were engaged by the contractor M/s. Amrik Singh. The identity cards were issued to these 8 workers by M/s. Amrik Singh. The management has failed to depart- mentalise these 8 worjters and therefore they are entitled to departmentalisation along with other work- ers who have already been departmentalised as per settlement dated 22-4-91.

3. The Union further alleges that the memorandum of settlement on wage revision for the workers of National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. was arrived at on 16th December, 198y under Section 12(.3) of the I.D. Act, iy47 between the management of JNMiXJ Ltd. and their workmen represented by AM India National Mineral Development Corporation Workers Federation and the affiliated Unions. As per settlement, the wage revision was effected trom 1-1-89 and accordingly some arrear amount was to be paid to ihe workers Dy the management. Un 5-2-90, the arrear amount was paid to tne workers by the management atier deducting ccnain amount varying from Rs. 60-80 from the workers without their consent. In this way the management illegally recovered the Union's tee from the arrear amount paid to them without obtain- ing their consent. Un representation by the workers, the management directed them to approach Union tor the said purpose. The management has illegally re- covered the Union's fees from the arrears of workers without their consent and therefore they are entitled to get the payment of the deducted amount from the management. No such recovery was made in other pro- jects/units of NMDC Ltd. Taking all these facts tnd circumstances or the case, 8 workmen are entitled to the departmentalisation as well as to get back the deducted amount of arrear from the management.

4. The case for the management is that for depart- mentalisation of hne ore workers, the management of NMDC Ltd. and two recognised Unions namely SKMS and MMWU had entered into a settlement on 22-4-91 and as per settlement the management had implemented all the provisions of the settlement. The present Union is not recognised by the management and therefore they have no locus standi to raise this dispute. The present Union is a minority Union and therefore they cannot raise the present dispute arising out of the settlement entered into with the majority Union namely SAMS and MMWU. This settlement has been arrived at by the said two recognised unions and the management and therefore this settlement is oinding on all the workmen. All the workers covered by the settlement have been extended the benefit of the settlement. The names of the 8 workers, as men- tioned in this case were not included in the list us per the settlement, and therefore the question of theii departmentalisation did not arise. The recognised Unions had not given the names of these 8 workers for departmentalisation at the time of settlement on 22-4-91. Initially the minority Union gave the names of six workers and subsequently the number of work- ers were raised to 8 persons for departmentalisation- According to the records of the management, these 8 workers had never worked with the contractor M/s. Amrik Singh. The list of the workers attached with . the settlement was verified by the said two recognised Unions who had entered into the agreement with the management on 22-4-91. In view of this fact, these 8 workers are not entitled for departmentalisation as claimed by them.

8. The management further alleges that the memo- randum of settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 was signed by the management of NMDC Ltd. and All India National Mineral Deve- lopment Corporation Workers Federation and its affi- liated Unions on 16-12-89. This settlement covered the revision of wages and other allied matters of the workers of the corporation. The SKMS (A1TUC) and the Metal Mine Workers Union (INTUC) functioning in the Deposit-14 project of NMDC which are consti- tuent Unions of All India NMDC Workers Federation and which are the sole bargaining agents of the work' ers of the corporation, were parties to the settlement of wage revision arrived at on 16-12-89. On the basis of this settlement, the arrears of wages were paid to the eligible workers on 5-2-90. The said two unions, which were signatories to the bipartite settlement, inti- mated the management vide their joint letter dated 30-1-90 that they had decoted to collect Unions dona- tion fee out of the arrears amount payable to the workers at the rate specified in the said letter. The management accepted their request and deducted the donation of the Union from the arrears payable to the workers subject to the following conditions :

1. Authorisation to deduct the sum from the individuals will be obtained by the unions as per the proforma given to them and sub- mit the same to the management for record.

2. The sum deducted from the individuals will be refunded in respect of whom the union could not obtain such authorisation and the balance amount only divided and remitted to both the unions.

3. A notification may be issued by the unions jointly for the information of the workmen that recoveries towards donation for the affiliated unions are being deducted by the management from the workmen out of ar- • rears payable to them.

6. It is further alleged by the management that the amount deducted from the arrears of the workers was paid to the Union as per their request. In view of this fact, the management is not liable to pay the deducted amdunt to the workers as claimed by the present minority Union. Taking all these facts into consideration the Union is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in this case.

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

1. Whether the 8 workmen namely Shri Budhu S/o Shri Hima, Shri Lakma S/o Aytoo. Shri Lakma S/o Shri Gunda, Shri Podiya Masa. Shri Chamroo S/o Shri Sukloo, Smt. Rambati W /o Shri Ramadhar, Shri Aytoo Ram, Shri Dashroo Ram, S/o Shri Dower are entitl- ed to departmentalisation as claimed by the Union.

7419

2. Whether the management illegally recovered the donation of tne Union trom the arrears of. the workers of the BIOP Deposit-14, Kirandui as per the joint request of two unions SKMS and MMwU.

3. Relief and costs?

8. Issue No. 1 :

In respect to the departmentalisation of fine ore workers, tne management of JNMlXJ Ltd. and the iwo recognised representative Umons namely SKMS and MMWU. arhnateu to All India NMDC workers fede- ration, entered into a settlement on 22-4-yi and the management implemented all the provisions of the settlement. The said Unions submitted the list of wor- kers to be departmentalised as per the said settlement. All tne workers mentioned in the list and submitted by the said two Umons were departmentalised. The Unions did not submit the name of 8 workmen who have raised this dispute for departmentalisation as per settlement dated 22-4-91. These 8 workers v/erc never found to have worked with the contractor M/s. Amrik Singh and therefore their name was never in- cluded in tne list of workers for departmentalisation. At the same time the present Umon is a minority Union as contemplated by the management. The settlement arrived at between the management and the two representative Union is binding on all the workers. The management has implemented the entire provi- sions of the settlement and had departmentalised the workers whose list was submitted tor the same. The names of these 8 workers were never included in that list as they had not worked with the contractor. In view of all these facts, these 8 workmen are not entitl- ed to departmentalisation. The management had dc- partmcntaiised the workers who were entitled as per settlement dated 22-4-91. It is therefore held that the present 8 workers are not entitled to the relief of de- partmentalisation as claimed by them. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

9. Issue No. 2:

The memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of the ID. Act, 1947 was signed by the management of NMDC and All India NMDC Workers Federation and its affiliated Unions namely SKMS and MMWU on 16-12-89 for the revision of the wages of the work- ers. As per this settlement the two recognised Unions SKMS and MMWU intimated the management vide their joint letter dated 30-1-90 for collecting the dona- tion from the workers out of the arrears payable to them at the rate mentioned in the letter. Trw request of these two representative Unions was accepted and the Union's donation was deducted from the arrears of workman on the date of payment. After deducting the amount of donation from the arrears, it was paid to the said Unions as per their letter of request. These Unions were recognised by the management as well as they were the signatories of the settlement dated 16-12-89. The amount of donation was paid to them after deducting them from the arrears of workers. No illegality has been committed by the management. At the same time, the present Union has no locus-standi to raise this dispute as they are not the representative Union of the workers. In view of this fact, It is hejd that the management was justified hi deducting the Union's donation from the arrears of workers payable to them. The management paid this amount to the representative Unions after deducting the same as per their request. No illegality has been committed in this respect. This isue is answered accordingly.

10. Issue No. 3 :

On the reasons stated above, it is held that the 8 workers namely Budhu S|o Hima, Shri Lakmai S\o Aytoo, Shri Lakma Sjo Gunda, Shri Podiya Masa, Shri Chamroo S/o Shri Sukloo, Smt. Rambati W/o Shri Ramadhar, Shri Agtoo Ram and Shri Dashroo Ram S/o Dowar are not entitled to departmentalisation as claimed by them. At the same time the deduction of donation/contribution amount of recognised Unions— SKMS and MMWU from the arrears of workers by the management is perfectly legal and does not require any interference. The workmen are not entitled to any relief in the present case. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workmen.

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

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th November, 2UU1 S.O. 3357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to tlhe management Mysore Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-11-2001.

[No. L-29012!34|93-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL, GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

III MAIN, HI CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated: 31st October, 20017420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8. 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17. 1923 rPART II—SEC. 3(ittl PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarai, B.Cora., LLB.,

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-29O12]4)93-1R (Misc.) dated 7tlh December, 1993 for adjudication on the following schedule :

Presiding Officer.

SCHEDULE

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

COMMON AWARD

CR No. 45(94

"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the ser- vices of Shri T. M. Jajshankar with eifcct from 18-5-1990? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

I Party

II Party

2. These three cases arc clubbed together as p°r the request of the parties. It was submitted that the dispute in these three cases is one and the same. Common evidence wais recorded. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels and the first party in person. Award is passed in CR. No, 45|94 with a direction to keep a copy of the award in CR No. 4|97 and in CR No. 68[93.

Shri I. S. Ycllappa Goudsr, The Senior Executive Officer. S|o Sri Sanganagoudar, Mysore Minerals Ltd., Konnur P.O., Nargund Taluk, No. 29, K.H.B. Colony, Dharwad District, Visveswaranagar, Hubli-580032.

3. Three workmen were working with the manage- ment. They were terminated and therefore industrial dispute is raised.

4. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and

Counter respectively.

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-29012J34J93-IR (Misc.) dated 2nd May, 1994 for adjudication on the following schedule :

5. Case of the first party workmen in these three SCHEDULE

cases is almost one and this same.

6. The case of the first party workman in CR No.

45J94 is as follows:

"Whether¹ the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the ser- vices of Shri I. S. Ycllappa Goudar with effect from 1-6-1990 ? If not, to what re- lief the workman is entitled 7"

C.R. No. 4|97

I Party

II Party

7. It is the case of the workman that he w^s appointeed as Supervisor by an order bearing No. MML|HBL|TE|88-89|250 dated 22nd September, 1988 on daily rated wages (consolidated wages) at the rate of Rs. 191- per day. First party wa's working honestly and sincerely. He worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

Shri R. Suresh, The Senior Executive Officer, No. 190, Shanky Road, Mysore Minerals Ltd., Sadashiva Nagar, No. 29, K.G.B. Colony, Bangalorc-560003 Visveswaranagar, Hubli-580032.

8. It is the further case of the first party that he wns terminated fiom service illegally in June 1990. The termination order is bad in the eye of law. Pro- visions of industrial dispute act vvevj not complied with before termination. 'Die first par.'y is a work- man. The termination timnun's to retrenchment. First party workman has prayed to pns>s award in his favour.

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of tlhc Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-29012I79I93- IR (Misc.) dated 13th December, 1994 for adjudica- tion on the following schedule:

9. The case of first party in CR No. 68(93 is as

under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Mysore Mmernls Limited is justified in terminating the ser- vices of Sri R. Suresh with effect from 1-6-90 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

10. The case of tlrs workman is also similar and he nays that (he was appointed as Clerk by order dated 22-74988 on daily rated wages of Rs. '19 per day. He h?r, worked continuously for more than 240 days in E: calendar year. Other allegations are similar. First party workman has prayed to pass award in | his favour.

C.R. No. 68|93

I Party

II Party

11. In CR No. 4[97, again the case of the first party is similar. The Claimant was nopoinfed as a Supervisor by head offics letter No. 1 [PERlPE'1987- 38 dated 14-12-1987 as per the direction of the management that the first oarty wrr; reported for duty as per the letter dated 18th December 1987 on daily rated wiages of Rs. 19[- per day.

Shri T. M. Jaishankar, The Vigilance and Chief No. 2R, Adhyapah Nagar, Administrative OPicr, Hubli-580032 Mysore Minerals Limited, 39, Mahatma Gandhi Rond, Bangalore-560001.

12. His further case is that he has worked conti- nuously for more than 240 days in a Calerjdar year The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the7421 and his termination is illegal. All other allegations arc similar. First party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

13. The case of the second party in brief is as under:

14. The main contention of the Second party in CR. No. 45J95 is that the first party was appointed as a Supervisor on temporary and daily wages basis by one S'hri M. Mahadevappa, the Sr. Executive Offi- cer at Hubli.

15. It is the further case of the management that the said Mahadevappa ha'd neither Ik; pnwer nor the right to make any appointments. Therefore the appointment is illegal.

16. In CR. No. 68J93 the c?sc of the management is almost similar. It is said in this c:/:c tfhat thv: first party had filed a Writ Petition challenging his Termi- nal ion Order. The High Court of Karnataka was pleased to reject the petition cf the first party at t re stage of preliminary heatings and again Writ Peti- tion was filed and this same is pending before the High Court of Karnataka and thr-rcfore there k no merit in this reference. Principles of Resjudicata are applicable.

17. Otlher allegations are similar contenting that the appointments made by Mn'nadevapna are not correct. Mahadevappa had no nght to rppoint the first party.

18. In CR. No. 4[97 the case of the management is almost the same.

19. The main contention of the management ag^in is that the appointment was made without following the normal recruitment procedures and the appoint- ment made by Mslhadevappa is net correct.

. 20. The second contention is fhnt the first party has not worked for more than 240 davs in a calendar year. Tt is also said that the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act arc not applicable. Manpccment for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

21. It is seen from the record", th.v mnnnt'i?ir"'irit examined one Mr. M. Narayana, MW1 in CR No, 68193 and his evidence is that the father of tV work- man in CR No, 6S!93 was working nv, Unit Ouicfr at Hubli under the second party and th- ;ir

22. It is also said that the competent ^thor'ty to mrrke appointment is the MrtnriginsT D'roc'nr pM therefore, the appointment made by IV^'^i'rvnnn.'i is not correct, Dunne; 1990 it was r?ve:i!e:l thpt the appointments are illegal.

23. It is stated by MW1 in Ivr, rrnvs ei"ir|iinntnn tlhat workman in this casd nnd two others were appointed together. Tt is also <=tntr-'-i bv fvm

24. Against this workman tjnt exnrninpd h'm^if and he has stated that he was appointed on daily wages. No notice or charge sheet was given. Ho does not know anything about the explanaion called by the department from his fattier.

25. EswaTa Gowda also got examined as WW1 in CR. No. 45|94. One Mr. Somanna was examined as MW1 in CR. No. 45|94. He admits in his cross examination that no notice or charge sheet was giv^-n to these workmen. He also said that bonus was given to the first party.

26. In CR. No. 4|97 workman got examined him- self and has stated that he was working on daily wages. His employment was extended and he has filed a number of documents to prove the same. Pro- vident Fund was also deducted from his salary. He is cross examined but nothing is found from his cross examination to say that he is giving false evidence. On the other hand the management continued his seivi- ces, MW1, Shri M. Narayana is examined in this cape- He says that appointment of urcsh was tem- porary. He also said that Mahadevappa had no authority to appoint these persons. He speaks about the notice and explanation of Mahadevappa.

27. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. I have read the citations given by the parties,

28. It is in evidence that tlhese 3 workmen have worked continuously for more than 240 days with the management. Jt is in evidence that the workmen have worked continuously for 22 months.

29. It is also clear from the records that Writ Peti- tion was filed by the Workmen and the copy of the order of the High Court of Karnataka is also filed.

30. It is also clear from the records that no show cause notice Or charge sheet was issued before ter- minating these workmen. It is also clear from th: records that no compensation was paid to them, 31. The only contention of the management is that the apopintment made by Mr. Mahadnvnppa is illegal and he had no auhority tf> appoint t^e-c workmen. Management lhave filed certain docu- ments. One such document is the warning tetter piv.-n to Mnhadevappa and no action was taken again'-* Mahadevappa'.

32. One thing is clear that as per the appointment order filed by the workmen, Mahadcvannn tippninted these Workmen and in the appointment Tder t'^-r,-. is n reference regarding order No, PERIlPlMDrjOO- 9111347 dated 18th Mr>y, 1990. Tha-r Tfc-rd :s n<*t for'h rr>min'T .in thi^ n^ Tfti/" m,in'in! n. - "i on saying that Shri Mahadevappa haft no right to appoint these workmen, but the order of higher authority is not filed.

33. Fnct remain's that these w->rkm<-n have worked continuously for 22 months with the mrm-ccm^nt, and when they, are terrnin.vrrl no clinrae. "hcrf was given find there is no compliance of the provisions of Industrial dispute act.

34. I haw rc?d the order in the Writ Petition No 11557 to 59190, The Wah, Court of Karnmska reiisctcd. the Petition, and said "that in. respect s?v"rv workers, the Hon"ble Supreme Court hsrs rendered a7422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 3, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] decision which is reported in the Dharward District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Others etc., Vs State of Karnataka and others etc. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given direciton for absorption of the work- men.

New¹ Delhi, the 22nd November, 2001 35. I have read ths decision relied by the learned counsel for the management reported in 1996(7) Supreme Court cases 481 and 1996(9) Supreme Court Cases 619.

S.O. 3358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the [ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (144 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of ihe [ndustrial Tribunal, Hyderabad as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplo- yers in relation to the management of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2001.

36. The facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the decision reported in 1996(9) Supreme Court Cases 619. In 1996(7) Supreme Court Cases 481 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India lhas held that the direction of the Administrative Tribunal to regularize the workmen is left undisturbed. But the same should not be treated as precedent.

[No. L-29012/36/99-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD 37. In the instant case it is in evidence that trie workmen have worked for more than 22 months with the management. The only contention of the management that the annointmem " "^ bv Mah".- devappa is illegal but that is not sufficient to prove the case of the management.

PRESENT:

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tri-

bunal-I.

38. Against this the learned counsel appearing for the first party workmen has relied two decisions repor- ted in the Supreme Court of India| in CA No. 59331 1994 dated 21-1-1998 and CA No. 2161|1987 dated January 11, 1996.

Dated: 19th day of September, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 52 of 1999

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Rashtriya Ispat Mines Employees Union, Madharam, Khammam.

. .. Petitioner 39. I have read the above decisions carefully. T have given my best consideration to the evidence and the doctuments before me and I am of the opinion that the management is not justified in terminating abruptly these workmen from the work on the vround that the appointment made by Mahadevappa is illegal.

AND

1. The General Manager,

Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

2. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Madharam Dolomite Mines, Madharam, Yellandu (M) Khammmn.

40. Tn view of the direction of the Hon'ble S"n- Teme Cnnr* of Tndia OrHer in Writ Peti'inn No. 11557 To 50190, the management his to rcpul^-H??. thece workmen a* ner rules because they have worked for morr than 22 rr.rmths anH there is in c""r>r>linnof of ihf nrov'e'on of Tivln^ril Act. Accordingly I pro- ceed to pass the following Order:

. .. Respondents ORDER

APPEARANCES:

Sri J. Siddiah, Advocate—For the Petitioner.

Sri V. Ravinder Rao, Advocate—For the Res-

pondents.

AWARD

C. Nos. 4Sf<)4. 68 /93 ,wl 4/97 h iwtlv allowed oirl the management is directed to regularize these workmen as p^r direcion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court OM"r In Rp No H557 to 50Ion. Tn the cl""n circumstances no back wages are allowed. Accord-* in"iv these tbr^e cases are disposed of. fT>;ct-itsd to PA tran^cribwl bv her corrected and s'gned by me on 31st October, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

The Government of Tndia. Ministry of Labour bv its letter No. L-29012/36/99/TR-fM), dated 6-8-99 in exercise of powers conferred bv Clause (d) of Sub- section (TV and Sub-section ?(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adiudicat'on between The Workmen and the Management on the issue mentioned in the schedule noted below:

"Whether the action of the management of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in terminctina; the services of 37 Security Guards who have7423 put in service fo* njore than 1Q years is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled ?"

After the appearance of the parties, they filed sepa- rate pleadings.

2. Briefly stated the facts mentioned in the claim sHatrnent filed by Hie Petitioner Union arc as under ;

office. They absconded from duty. .The Respondent had taken the Mines on leas© from the Government of Andhra Pradesh which is valid upto July, 2000 and thereafter the lease is to be rehttved. The police are also guarding magazines at Madharam. The first Respondent is contemplating to induct Central Indus- trial Security Force at the Mines. In this regard, Noti- fication was issued by the Ministry of Defence inform- ing not to engage services of private agency. It is not correct to state that the- Security Guards Were en- gaged by the Respondent and that their salaries were p^id by them. TW Security guards indulged in the a£t of vandalism during, 30-12-1997 to 2-3-1998. With tha help of Police was sought to restore tha law and order situation, Hence prayed to dismiss the claim as not maintainable. Respondent No. 2 adopted the same counter.

4. The point for adjudication is whether the 37 Security Guards are entitled to the relief as claimed for.

5. On behalf of the Ptftkkmer-Unkm W.W.I was examined and no documents were marksd on their side. The flrtt Respondent examine* M.WI & M.W2 and through them fets. Ml to M21 got marked.

6. On behalf of the Petitioner-Union, the 10th Peti- tioner was examined himself a* WWl and he ha" not filed any documents during his evidence. He deposed that one A. Krishna Rao was the Personnel Officer used to supervise the work of Security Guards af Madharam Delomite Mine*. Hd along with other Security Guards worked from 198ft to 1997. He wu getting Rs. 1,040.00 by the date of termination. While so, the Management without giving any notice, re- moved from service. The union gave a representation to A.C.L., Regional Office, Vijayawada for concilia- tion of the dispute. He further deposed that the Secu- rity Guards never appointed through any agency. The termination,.is illegal and so they are seekmj? for re- instatement into service undef the provisions of tTttf T.D. Act.

,$ri Ganaparapu Sheshagjri Rao and 36 others have. wi>j^£d- as Security Guards at Dolomite Mine*;, Madharam, Khammam. The Supervisory staff of the Respondent used to supervise the work of a Security Guard and they used to disburse the salaries to them. The Security Guards joined in the service in the year between 1986-87 initially they were paid at Rs. 300 ftted salary per month- From, time to time, salary was increased to Rs. 1,040. Alt these Security Guards worked continuously without any break for more than one. decade. They ma 120 yews as such there is necessity to have Security Staff to guard the area. While so, the Respondent without issuing any notice muchless without following the procedure had terminated the services oraUy w+e.f. 31-12-1997. On 1-1-1998 all the Security Guards went to tbeir work as usual but they were not permitted to perform duties. Tbe Security Guards had to make a dharna for the unjust action of the Respondent. The Management with the help of police, g6t them arrested. The Management had not given mem. any notice or any compensation before terminat- ing them. As such it is opposed -M the provis-kms of Hip I D. Act. The Security Guards gave a represenra- %tt to- Assistant Labour Cbmmissiofler, Vijayawwda. Conciliation meeting was hold before him on 15-7-98 btit the same had failed. The Government referred ttw mltttcr tor adjudication and in tui;n a reference was- sefcit. Hence prayed to- set awdc the- tetmin*Uon and tor order reimtateniwnt of the petitiones* with conti- nuity of service, back wages.

3. The 1st,Respondent filed its counter in which it

is¹ briefly stated as under:

7. The Respondents witness M.WI wto> tea Per- sonnel Manager has rertetattd the stand takefr by the- Respondent. M.W2 is the OwWrflefop'amt he deposed that he is the Managing Director, O" Sflri FDSS& Prt^ vate Limited, Vijayawada-and-his bwmcs" k U> supply security skilled stiff to- the industrial estaWishmtnte, A" pet the, psgcftdur"v first of. all i"c reeruits security men, tiain th"m a ni defray to- tl"c estaHiskinerits. Wfcereve? their setvjc"fr ai* tetnuiad te deputes- them a£ skilled security petsojmd to- Industrie establislt- mwt* by mtam. ot aft agcttawac The .estftbBsrM"eBt witt pay salwie" to the security sfa# who-were de- puted to- othvc estaWisttttiiiat* f" security men. As per Ex. M7 agt"ame"t dated 1-3-1905 entered by him with the-Respondent, h&agctttd to supply security staff for security purpose at Midhacaai Dolomite Mine- Dtar Yaliairda. Ex. M7, &y&*a\cnt wm extended after etpiiy of tw©- yea**- fat JaitbeB period of six months cflwewA undtii Ex. M& .\gai# a- ffesfe., ajmeement, E". M9", Wa" obtained faoat 1-7-1997 to 37424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii}] son employed in'any industry to do any Manual* Skilled, Technical, Operational, Clerical tit Super- visory work for hire or reward, whether the term* of employment be express or implied and for the purpose of any proceeding under this act in relation to an industrial dispute includss any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched or it was harped that to attract Section 2(s) the workman must be a workman and there was discharge, dismissal o* retrenchment by the employer,, As none of the re^ quirements of the section would apply to the Petitio- ner, it is contended that Section 25(B) of rhe Act:' has no application at all.

b*ack and report to hjs office at Khammam or Vijaya- wada right from' 1-9-1995 to 3 M 2-1997. He him- self paid Provident Fund contribution to all the secu- rity personnel who were posted at Madharam Dolo- miteand Ex. Ml2 is the letter addressed to the Pro- vident Fund Commissioner, Guntur sending through challan having Code A P, 16587|AGVIIL-4. EX Ml3 i^ the statement showing the payment of subscription of the security men. Ex. M14 to Ml 8 are the challans Qf payment of P,F. contributions. Ex. M19 is the con- tract labour regulation certificate obtained by him. Licence issued by the Labour Commissioner (Q Vijayawada. Ex. M20 is the Registration Certificate of the establishment. Exs. M21 is the renewal of the licence. The security persons used to be paid salary by deputing the Manager to the workspot.

, 8. The crux of the dispute is whether these 37 peti- tioners herein who worked as Security Guards in the respondent company through a contractor for more than 10 years and their discontinuation from service amounts to retrenchment under law and whether they are to be reinstated as claimed. The management stand is that the petitioners are neither appointed by the company nor they were terminated as alleged, and since their services were engaged through an Agency under contract with specific terms and condition!* they are not entitled for the relief prayed for.

12. On consideration of the oral evidence of MW's 1 and 2 coupled with the documents Ex. M3 to M21, it is abundantly clear that there was no relationship of employer and employee existed at any time bet- ween the petitioner's and the respondent company. MW2 who is the employer of a private security ser- vices has categorically stated that he obtained licence under the contract labour (Regulations and Aboli- tions) Act, 1970 had deputed the petitioners to work in respondents mines as security guard and he en- tered into an agreement with the respondent extend- ing it from time to time. The respondent's counsel submit that the management have neither issued any order of appointment to the petitioners nor discharged muchless dismissed them from service to attract Sec- tion 25 (B) of I.D. Act R/W 2(oo) as alleged. The evidence of MW2 makes it clear that he had cmpUyod the petitioners as security guards, as such thev can not seek for the relief against the respondent. \ • 9. Before considering whether discontinuance of ths petitioners services as security guards by the manage- ment, it is necessary to consider the relationship of employer and employee with reference to the defini- tion of Section 2(s> of I.D. Act.

10. On behalf of the petitioner union except the oral evidence of WW1 no other documentary evi- dence worth enough was let in to prove that the peti- tioners, covered by the reference were either appointed by the respondent company or they worked directly upder the control during the relevant period. In the cross examination, WW1 has categorically admitted that no appointment order was given by the respon- dent appointing them as Security Guards for attending to the security work at the Dolomite Mines, so also no P.F. deduction was made by the respondent from the salaries for all these years.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner's has pointed out that there is a collusion between the res- pondent and MW2 as setting up a contractor to defeat the rights of the petitioners who had worked for a period of 10 years as security guards of respondent^ mines. It is pointed out that a petition U/o 13 Rule 8 R/W Section 11(1) of I.D. Act, was filed to direct the respondent to produce the relevant record such as attendance, wages registers and other records for the disputed period so as to establish that ever since they have joined they are attending duties of Secu- rity Guards and they were treated as tlhe workman of the respondent company. Though the records arc in the custody, they were not produced so an adverse inference has to be drawn giving a finding in their favour.

14. The respondents have! filed a counter stating that no records harve been maintained in respect of these petitioners to produce the same. The agree- ments and the renewal of agreements given to MW2 for engaging the security guards on contract basis itself is a sufficient proof to establish that there was, no necessity to maintain any records by the respon- dents and that the contractor (MW2) himself was the employer and he was taking all steps for the welfare of the Security Guards.

15. The petition was closed with an observation, to consider it at the time of hearing the merits of the case.

] 1. To. falsify the petitioners version about their direct employment by the respondent company as alleged by WW1, the management had let in oral evi- dence of MW1 andMW2who are Personnel Manager and .the managing director respectively who spoke out that a private security service by means of Ex. M3 to M4, M6, M7 agreements the petitioners were en- gaged as Security Guards through contractor with specific terms and conditions and the agreements were extended from time to time. The remuneration pay- able to security guards was paid to :he contractor (MW2) who in turn used to distjure-} it at his con- venience and that as an emDiover (MW2> he himself wtrs deducting P.F. contribution from the salaries of tfiem and remit the same to the P.F. authority covered by Fxs. Ml,2 tn Ml 8 documentary oroof and that the contractor (MW2) since had licence from the com- petent authority to suDDly labour, under the contract la'tio"?_ ('RefmlationK and Abolition Act lo70") ps is evident ffmn'Pxs. M l⁹ to M21, they are riot attract- ' ed by Section 2(s) of T!D. Act, which means any per-

16. When no attendance 6r Watce rer/istcrfi ' werd maintained¹ in respect ri the security guards, it is improbable to 'ask the respondent to produce the 7425.

19. In the result an award is passed holding that a non-ebntinuation of petitioners at the mines as Security Guards is proper apd justified, irrespective of the fact that they had put in 10 years of service as contract labour. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

records. When the record is not in existence, th^re is no necessity to consider the petition. The learned counsel for ths respondent has placed reliance upon ai decision reported in Ramsarup and¹ Others vs. Labour Court, Patinla and Others (1996) (73) Factories and Labour Reports Punjab and Haryana page 1139 in which the legal principle is that :

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

742$ THE GAZETTE OF F&8A -.UKC. t, "2001/ AO*US!H£*M&JA 17, 1923 [PART B-i"se.*'"Efl Ex. MIA ; "Cballan "IOHB with statements in token of payment of P.F. by PDSS(".

Ex, 15 : 26-6-95—LtitWr from PUSS aOdftgsed to'Cbmmlssiuner JP.F. Guntur for the challans submissions front 8th May, 1995 along with the statement (5).

Ex. Ml6 : 30-5-05—tetter from PDSS add- ressed! to Commissioner 'F;F. Guntur for the challan submission for 'the month, of March 1995(5) April 1995.

Ex. M17 : 22-11-95—Lettsr addressed byFDSS to P.F. 'Commissioner, Guntur nbout the remittance of P.F. for the month of August •(50.

Ux. Wf8 : 18-10-96--Letter addressedbyPfcSS to P.F. Commissioner, Guntur about for the submission returns for the year 1995- 1996 along with statement.

Ex. M1& : 27-1-95—Licence, issued td PDSS by the Commissioner o! Labour, for secu- rity pjrranagements at Dolomite Mines at 'Madararh along with 'Awirexure.

Ex M20 : Registration certificate of establish- ment

Ex. M21 • 27-l-95-^errc\val of Licence issuing to'P. Kanaka Rao by ACL VijaymvadaL New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2UU1 S.O. 3359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the •Industrial Disputes 'Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CeWral 'Government hereby publishes • the Award of the Central ''Government Industrial Tribunal, 13hnb?ncswar " shewn in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to • the Tnartagement Baitarini Iron Mines and their 'Workman, wh!ch was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 19-11-2001.

[No. L-260r2/28/19974R(M)]

B. M. TIAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL T R I B U N A L - C U M T L A B O UR COURT, .BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT : Shri S. K. 'Bhai, OSJS, CSr. 'Branch) Presiding Officer, C.G.LT.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 141 [2001 Date of concluding of the rhenring 4th -October, 2001 Date of'Passing Awaid 29th October, 2001 BETWEEN :

The -Management of The Agent, Baitatini Iron Mines of !Dr. Barbjini r^ddhan, P.O. "Barbil, Distt. Keorijhar. 1st Tarty Manage- ment.

AMD

Their Workman, Shri Sukra Naik, Sjo Buchu Naik, Vill. 2nd Dhanur- joypur, P.O. Balabhadrapur, Distt. K"onjhar, 2nd Paity-Work- man.

APPEARANCES :

None.—For the 1st Party-Managomertt.

None.—For the 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ,ot powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and .sub-section "2(A) of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-26012t28!1997- [R (Misc.) dated 21-10-U997.

"-Whether ithe termination .of services of Shri "Sukra Naik, with effect .from 20-5-11996 -without giving any notice or following laid down procedure bv the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pra- dhan, P.O. Bai-bil, Distt. Keonjhar, is justi- fied and proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the Claimant '(hertmafter called •as the 2nd Party-Wofkman) may be stated in brief.

The 2ndT Party-Workman, joined under the 1st Party-

3. The -Tst •PartyManngeniefit has 'filed tfieir Written Statement denying all the allegations. They have challenged the reference "n ihe jgrounji ,jhat7427 New Delhi, tha 22nd November, 2001 there is no recognized Union to represent the IInd Pnity-Workm.au and so no Industrial Dispute arises. The case of the Ist Party-Management is that, the engagement of the 2nd. Parly-Workman was purely casual and temporary. Tt is stated that before the reconciliation proceeding, the claimant did not appear. Their positive case is that, the claimant; Shri Sukra Naik was a casual and • intermittent worker engaged on piece rate.basis.

S.O. 3360.1—In pursuance-,, of .Section. 17 of the In-i 4. On the, pleadings of the above parties "tEe

fallowing issues. have, been settled.

dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947^ the. Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award! of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in.the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers im. relation to thte management, Chennai Air Port and- thair' workman, which was received bv the' Central¹ Government on 19-> 11-2001; [Mo. L-H012[3|1999-lKrM)] B. M: DAVID,,Under Secy,

ANNEXURE

1. Whether the termination of,services of Shri SQkra, Naik, with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down • procedure by the Management of Battarini Iron Mines of Dr. Saroji'ni Pri- dian, P.O. Barbil, Distt Keonjhar,. is Justi- fied an4. proper ?

2K If.not, what relief the workmaa is entitled

BEFORE THE &ENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRU3UN A L-CUM-LAROUR COURT; CHENNAI

to?

7428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEC. 8, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA 17, 1923 [PART II—SEC." 3(ii)]

this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, the case has been taiten on hie us LD. No. 123| 21)01 ana' notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this inbunai, witn a direction to appear before the Tribunal on 1-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal^ the counsel on either side present wiih their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me tor final hearing on 14-9-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, ths oral evidence let in on the side of the II Party/Management, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the H Party|Mainagement alone, and this matter having stood over till this date lor consideration, this Tri- bunal has passed the following ;—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by ihe Central Govt, for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal is as :ollo\vs :—

"Whether the action of the Management of International Airport Autnoruy ot India, Chennai Airpon, Chennai, in terminating tne services ot Snri G. lyyadurai by their oruer aated 16-6-87 is jusahed ? It not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The facts of this industrial dispute are briefly

ap follows:—

proceedings were initialed against the Petitioner. A 4-Muige memo aateu -t-^i-ho lor me acis of miscon- auci. inai ne coininuted the it of godiej typewriter of the auuiority, ms cuiwmiMon OJL an act cuuuunaug 10 a ciiniiiiai onence, acting in a, manner prejudicial to cue AiuJiorny ana acting in a manner unoecoming oi an employee ot tne aumority. i n- disciplinary pro- ceedings were under way ana the copies ot the suppor- ting documents tor disciplinary pioc.eedmgs were also supplied to the Petitioner bUDSequently, the Petitioner waii tried tor offences under sections 302 and 201 of IPC in sessions case No. 130,86 on tne hie of Sessions Judge, Chengalpet and was sentenced to life imprison- ment on 31-3-87. The Petitioner was dismissed from the service with effect from 16-6-87 by an order dated 16-6-87. The Airport Director (at that time designated as General Manager), Chennai Airport was the competent authority empowered by the Interna- tional Airport Authority of India exercising the powers of the appointing authority or Disciplinary Authority for major penalty in respect of Group *C" and 'D' employees of the Chennai Airport under the Regula- tions. Thereafter, the Petitioner Sri G. Iyyadurai represented through his advocate Sri Raj Kumar Roberts, Chennai. Notice dated 24-9-93 a,nd 4-11-93 demanded reinstatement of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner was acquitted by the High Court in C.A, No. 222|87 giving the Petitioner the Petitioner the benefit of doubt. The Then Airport Director considered! the Petitioner's plea examined the relevant documents rcla'ing to the Peijtioner's suspension and subsequent dismissal from the services of Internwonal Airport Authority of India. In -view of the Petitioner's involvement in the theft case as revealed from the documentary evidence, the Airport Director did not see sulficicnt cause to reinstate the Petitioner in the services o' the International Airport Authority of India and the Petitioner's pica lor re- instatement was rejected. The Petitioner's letter dated¹ 8-10-96 was received by the Respondent but the same was not replied as suitable reply has already been communicated by order dated 18-3-94. The Peti- tioner has ailso filed a case No. CCP No. 8711996 before the Central Labour Court, Chennai under sec- tion 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Central Labour Court, Chennai on 31-8-98.

. The I Party| Workman Sri G. Iyyadurai (herein after refers to as Petitioner.) entered the services of the II Paity|Management International Airport Authority of India Chemiui (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 2-1-76 as cieaner|farash. He was arrested by police on 16-7 85 in connection with crime No. 404|S5. He was charged witn an oitice under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He was suspended on 16-7-85. On tlie basis of the invesd- gation and charge sheet, he was tried in Session's case No. 130|86 on the hie of the Sessions Judge, Chengalpet and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 31-3-1986 under section 302 of the IPC and was giv

3. The Petitioner in his Oaim Statement has alleged that his conviction was set side by the Hon'ble Hiuh Court of judicature at Madras in Cr. No. 404185 by quashing the same consequently, the question of deten- tion does not arise at all. So also, the suspension order based on the Cr. No. 404|85, became void in law. No enquiry was conaucted, no finding was rendered and no show cause notice was given in pursuance of the chairge cum suspension order dated 16-7-85. The Petitioner was illegally dismissed from the service based on the charge cum suspension order dated 15-7-85 by dismissal order dated 16-6-87 based on crime No. 404|85. He was acquitted in appeal by the Hon'ble High Court on 6-8-93. So, the removal- order dated 16-6-87 which was passed based on .the charge cum suspension ordei dated 115-7-85 by the General Manager is' to be set aside, "Since' it was based' on Crime No. 404|85. Further, th© Respondent has not considered the past record of the Petitioner and the dismissal order was passed on 16-6-87 by incompe- tent person. Hence, it is void. The enquiry waj ia7429 Point:—

flagrant violation of statutory standing orders of the Respondent, consequently, the; principles of noiural justice has been violated. Thera was utter disregard or ;iic procedure, a [ulal non-application of rmnd in passing the dismissal order as well as the appellate oraci passed by the Respondent dated 18-3-V4. The Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute belorc the Labour Otticer, Conciliation (Ceiural), Gicnnai which Was ended in a failure. Th; Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Peti- tioner in service with all benehis, continuiy of service with all benefits, continuity of service etc. and further impose compensation of Rs. 75.000 with Cost Rs. 1,000.

4. The contention of the Respondent [Management in their Counter statement is that the Petitioner vav convic.cd in session case by the Sessions Judge, Chengalpet for life imprisonment on 31-3-87, the report dated 9-1-86 was received from the Inspector of Police, Meenanibakkam Police Station informing that the Petitioner had stolen the typewriter bearing No, 293658 which he had pledged the same with J. Lalith Kumar Jain a pawn broker. It was brought to the notice of International Airport Authority of India that the pledge receipt was found from the Peti- titioner's house during the investigation of the murder case. The said typewriter pledged by the Petitioner was later seized by the police from the pawn broker of Nanganallur, Chennai. The Airport Director after considering the gravity of the offence committed by the Petitioner, invoKed the powers conferred under Regulations and imposed major penalty of dismissal of the Petitioner from the services of Internationa) Airport Authority of India. The Airport Director tat that time designated as General Manager), Chennai Airport was the competent authority em- powered by the International Airport Authority of India, exercised the powers of the appointing autho- rity or Disciplinary Authority for major penalty in respect ot Group C and D employees of the Chennaj Airport under the regulations. There are no merits in the petiiion and the. petition is liable to be rejected. The Petitioner is not entitled t0 reinstatement or any other benefits. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the petition.

5. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, on the side of the Petitioner no one was examined and no document has been marked as Petitioner's exhibit. On the side of the Respondent/Management Assis- tant Personnel Manager of TI Party/Management International Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport was examined as MW1 and 9 documents have been marked as management Exs. Ml to M9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has not turned up for any argument. The - learned counsel for the. II Party/Management alone has advanced his argu- ments. " r

6. The Point for my consideration is—;

The Petitioner workman Sri G. lyyadurai was working as cleaner/farash under the 11 Party/Man- agement International Airport Authority ot India, Chennai. It is admitted that the Petitioner was arrest- ed by the Police on 16-7-85 in connection with crime No. 404/85 for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 1PC. It is also admitted that the Petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Chengalpet and sen- tenced him life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 IPC and three years rigorous imprison- ment under Section 201 IPC. The contention of the Petitoner that on appeal, the said conviction was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Madras and he was acquitted in the appeal on 6-8-93. It is alleged in the Counter Statement of the Respon- dent/Management that during the pendency of the said criminal case, the Petitioner was involved in a case relating to theft of a 2,'Jdr.:j typewriter belonging to the Intrnational Airport Authority of India, Chennai and that during the police investigation of the Peti- tioner's involvement in the murder case, a morrgage receipt was found in the residence of the Petitioner. From that it came to light that the Petitioner had stolen Uhe typewriter bearing No. 29367S irom the International Airport Authority of India and pledged the same with J. Lalith Kumar Jain, a pawn broker. The typewriter pledged by the Petitioner was later seized by the police from the pawn broker. Discipli- nary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide charge memorandum dated 4-2-86. It is further alleged hi the Counter Statement of the Respondent that the disciplinary proceedings were under way and the copies of the supporting documents for discipli- nary proceedings were also supplied to the Petitioner and subsequently, the Petitioner was tried for tho offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. In Ses- sions case No. 130/86 and he was sentenced to life imprisonment on 31-3-87 by the Sessions Judge, Chengalpet. The Petitioner was dismissed from service o{j the authority under Regulation 33(1) of Interna- tional Airport Authority of India employees conduct, discipline and appeal regulations w.e.f. 16-6-87 b> the order dated 16-6-87. These things have not at all been stated in the Claim Statement. Apart from plead- ing all these things, the Respondent has examined MW1, the Assistant Personnel Manager employed by the Respondent/Management. Ex. Ml is the xerox copy of the letter dated 2-12-85 addressed to the Ins- pector of Police, Meenambakkam Police Siation, Madras by Assistant Director, International Airport 'Authority of India, Madras. In that letter the Assis- tant Director has requested the Police Inspector to furnish the details with regard to the registration oi case against the Petitioner for the theft coinmitled by the Petitioner of the typewriter belong to the Inter- national Airport Authority of India. Ex. M2 is the xerox copy of the reply given by the Inspector of Police, Meenambakkam Police Station, in- which he has stated that police has registered a case against the Petitioner G. Iyyadurai, and the typewriter pledged by him with the pawn broker, Nanganallur, Madras J. Lalith Kumar Jain was also seized. Ex. M3 is the xerox copy of the charge memo dated 4-2-1986 issued to the Petitioner for his commission of theft of Godrej typewriter belong to the Respondent/Managcmest.

"Whether the action of- the. Management oi International Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport, Chennai, in terminating the services of Shri G. lyyadurai by their Order dated 16-06-87 is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?" 7430 - THE GAZETTE OF IN^A.: TOL 8. Z0Q1J, AG&AfU3fANA 17, 1923 [PATt^JJMte& ^ OJ

to the. Respondent/Management.for which, disciplinary actipA. has. been taken, against the Petitioner, by, issuing, a charge.sheet has not been stated in the Claim State- ment at all. The entire facts has been burked in,the Claim Statement. When the fact of theft said to have been committed, by the Petitioner has been specifically averred in the Counter Statement by the Respondent/ Management and aiso spoken to in evidence by MW1 and records to that effect has been filed on the side of the Management they have not disputed by the Petitioner as they are false and one such tljeit ha^ not been committed by him,at all. This evidence avail- able on the side of the Respondent/Management go to show that the Petitioner while in service under trie. Respondent/Management as, a cleaner has committed an offence of theft punishable under IPC. Such being, the. character of the employee, the Respondents/Man- agement is. not expected.to reinstate him in service. Uri'ough,the, Petitioner has.been acquitted by the High¹ Court of Madras, on appeal in murder case on 6-8-93,v the Petitioner has chosen,to.file a petition before the. Central labour, Court, Chennai, as CCP No, S7/9&. under Section 33C(2) of the. Industrial Disputes.Act, 1947, the said petition filed by the Petitioner in 1996. was cfis.mis.sed by the Central Labour Court, Chennai on, 31-8-1998, This allegation in. the Counter State- ment, of the,Respondent has not been disputed by the Petitioner.. Ff om alj, these, things, it is evident that the R-csppndent/Managenient, the International Airpprt Authority Q£.India,. Chennai.Airport, Chennai, hau. terminated the, services .of Sri Gr lyyadurai by an crdpr, dated 16-6-87 since the Petitioner was sentenced,.to life-imprisonment on 31-3-97 on a murder charge^by, the Sessions Judge,, Chengalpet. So the order passed by the Respondent/Management on, that day is quite justifiedy whichi-is.in .accordance,.with; the;Regulation. 33(1) of International Airport Authority of India Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal. Regula- tions. It cannot be. said that it is unjustified. It is also seen from the facts of this case that subsequently also the request made by the Petitioner through his counsel for reinstatement in service has, npt been considered and the same was rejected by the Respon- dent/Management because of the fact that the Peti- tioner had shown to be involved in commission oJ; theft of godrej typewriter belong to the Respondent! Management. Hence the Petitipner is npt entitled to any relict Thufe the point is answered accordingly.-

7, In the, result an Award is passed holding; that the;, action of the,Management of Internatipnal Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport, Chennai in ter- minating thp services of Sri G. lyyadurai by order dated. 16-6-87. is justified. Hence, the concerned workman .is not,, entiled ..for any relief. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on, this .day,the 9th October, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the X Parjy/Workman : None.

Ex. M4 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 8-7r8.6, sent by the Assistant Director to the Inspector or Poljce,, Meenanibakktim Pplice Station, requesting the police to. send; a copy of the., pa\vn broker receipt issued by M/s, J. Laiit^ Kumar Jain tg G. lyyadurai which, was sewed .by the police for the purppse of deartrnental enquiry since the Petitioner had asked the copy of, the receipt.' Ex, M,5 is .the, xerox copy of the letter dated 22-7-86 sent by the Assistant Director of the, Respondent/Management to the Inspector of Police, Meenanibakkam reminding them to send the copy of the pawn, broker receipt for continuing the enquiry against the Petitioner, Pending enquiry; the. Petitioner was sentenced tg life imprisgnment by the Sessions Judge, Chengalpet in the murder case against him and on coining to know this, the General Mana- ger, Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 16-6-87 dismissing the Petitioner from service with immediate effect. The xerox copy of the order is Ex. M8, It is stated in the Counter Statement that there- after Sri G. lyyadurai represented through his advo- cate Sri Raj Kumar Roberts, Chennai by notice dated 2.4-9-93 and 4^11-93 demanded reinstatement of,the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner was acquit- ted by the High Court in, tfcie appeal. Then the. Airport Director has considered hisplea,and, examined the rele- vant documents relating, to Petitioner's suspension and subsequent dismissal from the services of, International Airport Authority; of India, an$j. from the records, it was clear thflt.tH,Petitioner, was charge, sheeted for, th* theft,. of^gpdj;cj,typewriter belong to the. Respon- dent/Management "and. in view, of the Petitioner's involvement in, thp, tti^ft case, asv. revealed from the- documen/ary evidence,-, the Airport Director did. npi see,.sufficient cause to reinstate the Petitioner in. the services of the International, Airport Authority of India, and, the Petitioner's plea for reinstatement v/as reject- ed, MW1 has.. ais,o deposed so in his evidence. Ex. M7 is. th.e.xerox,copy,of the order passed by the Air- port Director, dated 18-;3-94. ExsvM8 and M9,are the xprox,copiea of the lexers dated 21-10,-98 and 10-11-9S respectively^ sent by the Assistant Personnel Manager of the, i^espondent/Management to the Inspector of Police, requesting them to Inform the latest position of. the. case registered against the, Petitioner for the theft of gpdrej typewriter of Respondent Management. It is the. evidence, of, the MW1 that inspite of these reminder;? to the police, the, Respondent/Management have not received anj] reply, for" the same.. MW1 in the cross examination has' "stated that the enquiry against the.Petitioner in respect o£ the. theft of gD&reJ typews^erjbplgng to, thf Respondent/M$na,gen}ent cpuld not be proceeded with., because the Petitjtorier, was convicted and sentenced with imprisonment in the cri- minal .case. To the MWl.in the cross examination nothing has bean suggested by the learned, counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not committed the theft of godrej typewriter belong to the Respon- dent/Management and what that is stated by the police and the seizure,-of the said godrej typewriter by the pplice along.with.the pawn.ticket for the pledge of that type^ritef• to the pawn.broker,were also.false. On the other hand, there was, sufficient evidence.avail- able in this case as documentary, evidence- to show that the, Petjtipneii h^a conimitte.d.,tljftft pi godrej type- w r it r^4g;,to~tne Re^ondcnt/^ Tpis fiwft-oj cojftWWWt'oI thesft of th(Mype#rlf"r belong

Fpr trw.,H.I>arly/MwflBwnfint,.; MWl Shri M.

Natw"jjttf,,- -vtii Documents marked :

For the .I.Party/Workman :,Nil.

For the II Party/Managemsnt :—•

Ex. No. Date "Description

Ml 02-12-85—Xerox .copy of the letter from the

Management to the Inspector of Police.

M2 09-01-86—Xerpx Cppy of the .letter from Sub- Inspector to IAAI with,enclosures.

M3 04-02-86—Xerox copy pf the charge memo

issued to Petitioner along with enclosures.

M4 08*0.7-86—Xerox copy of the letter from IAAI

to the Inspector of Police.

M5 22-07-86—Xerox copy of the letter from AAI

to the Sub-Inspector of Police.

M6 16-06-87—Xerox copy of the order of dismissal

passed by IAAI.

,M7 18-03-94—Xerox copy of the order passed by

the Respondent.

M8 21-10-98—Xerox copy of the letter from the

Management to -the .Inspector of Police.

M9 10-11-98—Xerox copy of the letter from the

Management to the Inspector -oi Police.

| ?A* T, I M ^, 3 C U )} • / M 82 T HE G A Z E T TE O F; I N D IA E E C . . " ,. 2 b p ty A G R A H A Y A NA 1 7, 1 9 23 Minref Industries, 9

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2001 S.O. 3361.—In exercise of the powers Conferred by sub-claiise (ii) of clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Iron Ore Mines. Manganese Ore Mines and Chronic Ore Mines Labour Waif are Fund Act, 1976 (61 of 1976) and in continuation of tliis Ministry's notification number S.O. 729. dated the 13th March, 2000, published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 25th March, 2000, the Central Government hereby declares the factories specified in the Schedule below to be metallur- gical factories for the purposes of the said Act> namely :—=

SCHEDULE

Maithan Ceramic Limited,

P.O. Chirkundn, District phanbad (Jharkhand).

2. Cement Corporation of India Limited, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.

Kesoram Cement.

Basr.ntnagar, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh.

Priyadarshini Cement Limited, 4.

Ramapuram, Nalgouda District, Andhra Pradesh.

Pnnna Cement Industries Limited, 5.

Talarichcruvu, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh.

Raasi Cements Limited,

Vishnupuram, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh.

Saha Cements Limited,

Thottakudi, K-anyakumari District, Andhra Prcdesh.

Kema Chemicals Industries,

Unit Mo. 1, 4|13-1*. Industrial Area, Gorwa, Earoda (Gujarat).

10, Old Post Office Street, 3rd Floor, Room No. 84, Kblkata4 (West Bengal),

10. Hyderabad Industries Limited, Heavy Engineering Division. P.O.-Hindmotor-712233, Hooghly (West Bengal).

11. Tata Pigments Limited,

Sakchi, Boulward, Jamshectpur (Jharkhand).

12. Hindustan Zinc Limited,

PO : Tundoo, District Dhanbad, (Jharkhand).

13. Kalyanpur Lime and Cement Works, At & PO : Banjari, Rohtas (Bihar).

14. Dibyajyoti Chemicals Pvt. Limited, AT-Kanakhai, P.O. Anantpur, Via : Bhuban, District Dhenkanal (Orissa).

15. IPI Steel Limited,

AT P.O. Gundichapada, District : Dhenkanal (Orissa).

16. Indo Metal Alloys, . Keonjhar (Orissa).

17. Krishna "Ferro Products Limited, H-3, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 (Orissa).

18. Kalinga Minerals,

P.O. Bhuban, District DhenkanaJ (Orissa).

19. Orichem Limited,

Qr. No. IVB-1|2, Unit-1, Bhubaneswar-751009 (Orissa).

20. Rexon Strips Limited, Rourkela/769011, District Sundargarh (Orissa).

21. Sidhartha Chemicals,

Z-10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 (Orissa).

[F. No. S-23017|14|96-WH] DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH, Welfare Commissioner (Headquarters) Printed by the Manager, Govt of India Pren, Ring Road. New Delhi-UOl** and Published by the Controller of Publication*, Delhl-110054, M tl