REGN. NO. D. L.—33001/99 The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 52] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications issued by the Ministries of .the Government of India
(other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSION
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2001
S. O. 3484.— In exercise of the powers con-
ferred by sub-suction (8) of section 24 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974),
the Central Government hereby appoints
(7701)
3854 GI/2001- 17702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29 2001/PAUSA 8. J923 [PART TI—SEC. 3(ii)] Sh. V. N. Ojha, Advocate. New Delhi as Special Sh. Subhash Chandra Bhardwaj, Advocate, Patna as.
Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution and Special Public Prosecutor to conduct Lhc prose-
other proceedings in Case Nos. RC. 3(A)/94- cution and other proceedings in the csae No.
ACU (I) [C.C. No. 22(C)/97], (2) RC-3 (A)/94- RC-2(S)/97-SCB-H/New Delhi in the coxirt of
ACU. (I) [C.C. No. 36 (Q/97], (3) RC-4 (A)/94- Addl. Distt. & Session Judge, Patna and any other
ACU. (I) [C.C No. 19 (CV97)], (4) RC-5 (A)/94- matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
ACU (T) [C.C. No. 06 (C) 97)], (5) RC-5 (A)/94-
ACU. (I) [C.G. No. 37 (C)/97)], & (6) RC-3 (A)/94- [No. 225/20/2001-AVD-II]
A.CU. II) [C. C, No. 16 (C)/98-538/2000], in the SHUBHA THAKUR. Under Secy.
Court of Special Judge, Guwahati, and any other
matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
[No. 225/30/2001-AVD-JIJ
SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.
New Delhi ihe H'.Mi December, 2001
S. O. 3485. In .-v,.-lri<:<- or thv. pow'fs
conferred by snb-sf_-iion (8) of section 24 of tho
Code of Criminal Pro?.cU'.i>\ 1973 (Act No. 2 nf
1974), 1he Ceniral Government hereby appoints 7703
Engineers and Contractor,., No. 917, 3rd Main
road- 4th Cross, Vijaya Nagar, Bangalore and
any other public servants or person registered
with DSPE/CBl/ACB/Bangalorc vide RC. 23 (A)/
2001-BLR.
[No. 228/71/2001-AVD-I1 (i)]
HAR1 SINGH, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2001
S. O. 3486.—In exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (I)of Section 5 read with
Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establish-
ment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), thf Central
Government with the consent of the State Govern-
ment of Karnataka vide notification No. HD,
120 PCR 2001, dated 10th July, 2001, hereby
extends the poweis and jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the
whole of the State of Katnataka for investigation
of offences punishable under Section J20-B read
with 420. 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Suction 13(2) rc-;id with 13(l)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, and attempts, abetments
and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with
one or more of the offence mentioned above
and any other offence and offences committed
in the course of the same transaction or arising
out of the siiino fac'.s against Siiyutbs Chiraranjan
Shetty, Sr. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Vuni
Vilas Road Branch, Bangaloie (2) Shri Ramesh
Hogdj, Proprietor, M/s. Hfgdc CousUuciiwis,7704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923 -PARI- IT - S E C. 3('ii")l New Delhi, the mh December. 2C01
S.O. 3487. -In exercise ol' the poweis conferred
by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
(Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with
the consent of the State Government of Karnataka
vide notification No. KD 121 PCR 2001, dated 27th
July, 2001, hereby extends the powers and juris-
diction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka
for investigation of offiences punishable under Section
13(2) read with l3(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Aut, 1988, and attempts,1 abutments and conspi-
racy in relation to or in connection with one or more
of the often.ee mentioned above and ;"ny othoro ffence
and offences committed in the course of the same
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS transaction or arising out of the same facts against
Shri Anjanayya, Divisional Engineer, Department of
(Department of Telecommunication) Telecommunication (BSNL), Bellary and any other
(Official Language Section) public servants or person registered with DSPF/CBT/
ACB/Ban galore vide RC.26(A)/2001-BLR.
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2001 [ No. 228/71/2001-AVD-II (ii)]
S. O. 3488.—in pursuance of rule 10(4) of
the Official Language (use for official purpose of HARl SINGH, Under Sscy.
the Union), rules, 1976 the Central Government
hereby notifies following offices under the
administrative control of Ministry of Communi-
cations( Department ol" Telecommunications where
of more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
Chief General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Haryana
Circle, Ambala
General Manager Telecom BSNL Dibit. Gurgaon
[No. E.-11016/1/99-O.L.]
R. D. MAMWAL, Director (O. L.) 77057706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 77077708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. DECEMBER 29. 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PAKI II Sfc.K'OI 77097710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)] 77117712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PACT II—SEC. 3(ii)]
77 H
of petroleum products through Ihc Mumbni-Maniuad Pipeline Extension Project from Pnncwndi (Manniad) in the State of Maharashtra to Manglya (Indore) m the state of Madhya Pradesh by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And, whereas, the copies of the said Ga/.cttc notification were made available to the public on 6lh day or October, 2001;
And. whereas, the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government
Now, ihcrcforc. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I)ofscction6ofthcsaid Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in (he said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Acl, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on this date of the publication oflhis declaration, in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
sc:iiKnui,K
Tuhshll: niiulo District: Dhulr State ; Miihnnishlm
Name of village
Survey/Oat No
Area
Are
Hec-
Mts
tares
2
3 4 5
1
1 Kullhe
10
152/A1
01)
0
10 00
0
152/A2/2
{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1)}}}}
152/A/2/1
04 50
1.12/2/1
04 50
0
152/13/1
0
00
4K
16 00
0
152/H/2
04
0
1 .10
152/A/2/2
145
0 10 91
0 00 45
Can lr."ck
144
0 48 59
14.1
01 M0
0
04 42
Knnoli Nullii
0
0
1.14/1
02 06 MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
05
1.14/2
0 02 New Delhi, the 21st December, 2001
0 23 78
138/13/4
13X/H/.1
24 00
0
.VI
0
1.18 A
11
0 00
Cart Truck
74
1.17/1
06 76
0
137/2
45
52
0
Road ODR-102
00 7X
0 3864 GI/2001—37714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Namo or Village
Survey/Oat No.
Nanw of Village
Survey/Oat No.
Area
Area
Hec-
Arc
Are
tares
Sq.
Mts.
Hec-
tares
Sq. Mu.
0
1. Kuhhe
7/1-2
10 00
113/1
32 34
2. Mattditl
7/1
0 03 47
0
01 23 Road VR-149
0
0
Drain
01 21
0
116/1
61
0 20 98
20 00 116/2
0
60
00 22
12 60
0
116/3
0 06 88 (•2/2
0 17 50
116/4
0 06 88 62/4
0
30
17
116/5
06 88
0
62/3
0 17 24
64
0 30 73
28 81 118 ft.
0
Zodga Borkund Road
0 00
02 12
0
2. Mandal
Cart Track
S3
0
84
27
135
10 56
0
72/1
72/2
04 73
0
Drain
134
0 33 04 73/1/1 73/1/2 73/1/3
0
83
33
00 31
0
Drain
120/1
0 03 82 73/2 73/3/1 73/3/2
14 00
0
120/2
73/3/3
120/3
0 14 00 Drain
0
46
02
0 02 OS Road. VR.124
00
0
42
121/1
121/2
01 14
3. BorltUhd
Cart Track
0
69
It
0
87
0 27 212
211
0 21 29 71/1 74/2 74/3 74/4 74/5
47
0
210
12 Canal
0 01 06
66
0 44 22
07 56
0
214/1
214/2 A
0
Drain
00 33
214/2B
84
0 28 13
213/A/l/l
86
0 09 83
0 18 42 215/A/U/l/l
0 21 60
0 06 70 83/1 83/2
18 42 215/A/1/2
0
Drain
01 19
0
06 70 215/131/2
0
87/1
06 70
0
215/AU/l/l
0 39 90
215/B/1F
0 05 70 87/2 87/3/1
17 42 Bori River
0
83/A
0 11 76
83/B
4. Borkund (Ratanpura)
92
0 30 33
104
0 16 81
18 00 231
0
247
0 20 16 246/1
103
0 48 54
0 01 00
80
0 10 246/2
102/11/2
0 03 00
(J
hi
01
Road
102/11/1
0 03 00
102/10
0 06 50
0
66
24 102/8
0 14 30
245/1A
245/113
245/2
102/7
0 10 99
K6 282 11.
0 31 102/6/4
0 10 00
Road. Sit-15
0 04 32 102/5/3
0 03 00
102/6/2
0 02 00
16 38
0
7715
ATM
Namo of Village
Survey/Gut No.
Name of Village
Survey/Oat No.
Area
Are
Are
Hec-
Uro*
Sq.
Mt*.
Hec-
tarei
Sq.
Mts.
4. Borkund (Ratanpura)
286
04
14 96 92/1
0
86
0
5. Dondvad
0 11 70
00 River
92/2
0
50
614
22
613
0
60
12
0
24
0 15
14
0 00 612/3 612/4
12
95/1 A/1
95/1 A/2
95/1B
93/2
93/3
95/4
Roa4,VR-155
0
70
02
617
0 26 46
619
0 15 12
607
0 13 75
93
63
0 13
17 94
01
0
91
0
05
19
80
6. Vinchur Budmk
80/2/A-l
50
0
40
06
0
606/1
0
44 80/1A./1
55 606/2
0 50 40
0
40
00 Drain
CartTraok
0 00 90
00 97 81
0
82/1A
07
0
20
05 50
0
603/1
604
603/2
82/1B
0
70
03 Road, ODR-105
04
0
50
0 11 21 82/2
0
48
628
33
0
52
83
10
0
92 Drain
02
41
00 Cart Track
27
0
00
0
602/1
602/2
602/3
35
48
0
109/1/1
109/1/2
109/1/3
109/1/4
Drain
03
0
78
97/1
0
10
629
17
0
04
01
01
0
04 97/2A
0
56
380
25
08 97/2B/1
0
J. Dondvad
0
67
02 59/2
14
08 97/2B/2
0
79
02
0
65/1
12
Canal
30
10
0
00
0
74 65/2
0
03
02 98/1/1
0
65/3
10 50
06 98/1/2
0
02
0
Canal
00 31
00 98/2/1
04
0
67/1
0 01 02
0 01 86
00
0
67/2
98/2/2
0
57
04 71/1
06
11 00 100/1
0
56
0
71/2
06
17
0 11 100/2
71/3
06
0
36
17 100/3
0
56
11
0
71/4
06
73 101/1A
09
02
0
70/1
14
0
60 101/1B/1
01
0
70/2
14
0
09
40 101/1B/2
01
0
72/1
60
01 101/lC/l
0
0
00 101/1/2
12
0
83
02 101/1D
0 02 75
00 101/1A
0 03 7716 TTIF. GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 \PAKT Q—SEC. 3(ii)l Name of Village
Survcy/Uat No
Area
Name of Village
Are Sq. Mts.
Hec- tares
7. Shirud
Cart Track
0 00 72
50
0 13
791/1 7° 1/2
0 19 44
790/1 790/2 790/3 790/4
7X9
0 47 52
97
Cart Track
0 00
27 70
0
78K/1 7X8/11) 788/1C 788/2/2
0 36 00
8O5/1A 805/1U 8O5/2A 805/2B
Drain
70
0 02
0]
Dram
92
0
0 01
Drain
85
0
772/1
10
53
772/2
09
X21
18
0
0 02
Drain
70
00 81
Cart Truck
0
0 15 48
X22/1 822/2
01 80
0
825/1 825/2 825/3 825/4 825/5
20
0 34
8.19/1 8.19/2
0
X0
01
Road VIM 18
30
8.18/3
0 06
X, Visrani;
0 29 16
840/1 840/2 840/3
0
Drain
00 72
8.17
15 96
0
Railway
02
06
0
48
01
Cart Truck
0
0 16 61
842/1A 842/1 H X42/2
0 09
Drain
W
0 35 28 9 VolhancDk 55/1 5 5'2
0 00
Drain
65
Survey/Gal No.
Area
Are
Hec- tares
Sq. Mis.
46
29 85
0
55
0 08 54/1 54/2 54/3
51
0 02 RoadODR-113
0 01 36 53/1 53/2
0 23 83 6S/1A 65/1B 65/2
86
0 62 66/1 66/2 66/3
0
80
01 Drain
71/1 71/2B
0 18 00
00
0 24 68/1A Att/1 11 0(1/ 1 |J 68/2A 68/2B 68/2C 6R/3
80 Drain
0 01
18 00
0
70
06 30 76
0
36
09
0
78/1A 78/1B
01 44 Cart Track
0
16 906
20
0
0
80
28 77/1 77/2 77/3
68
0 31 130/2 130/3 130/4
44 Cart Track
0 01
59 I>rain
0 01
0
89
94 57/2/1 57/3
49
0 00 Shirud Vinrane Road
55
72
0 29
04 72
0
49/1 49/2
07 75
0
48/1 48/2 48/3
0 03 42 360
326
0 68 40 Name of Village
Survey/Gata No.
Area
Name of Village
Hec- Are Sq.
tares
Mts.
Drain
05 40
7717 Survey/GaU No.
Area
Sq.
Hec- Are
tare*
Mt".
02 32
0
Drain
9. Velhane BK
0
10. Tanda Kundane
0
322/1
16 20
0 01 98
Road, MDR-43
0
293/1/1 293/1/2
30 24
40 68
0
294/1 294/2 294 Pt.
26
0 10
303/2/1 303/2/2 303/2/3
303/2/4
0 10 26
Drain
02 70
0
0 72 54
304/1 304/2
KS
0 29
306/1 306/2 306/3 306/4
307
0 06 48
Cart Track
01 26
0
XX Pi.
0 91 80
0
Cart Track
00 97
Cart Track
00 68
0
0
Drain
60
03
94
0 14
11 Anchadc 74/1 74/2 74 Pi.
50
RoadODR-112
0 04
23
0 14 40
0 30 60
15/1 15/2
0
40
14
14/1 14/2 14/3 14/4
0
68
Drain
04
4X
0 24
12/1 12/2
Drain
0 04 32
10. Tanda Kundanc
0
86
44
22
Cart Track
01 44
0
0
45
21 96
46
16 20
0
0
40
05
47/1 47/2
Drain
70
0 02
58
0 14 70
36
0 00 Drain
03 96 73
0
07 36
0
72/2
03 24 Canal
0
50
0 13 74/1 74/2
0 10 26 75 75 Pt.
01 44
0
Drain
30
0 15 109/1/1 109/1/2 109/2 109/1/3
0 03 96 Drain
60
0 03 108/1 108/2
20
0 25 107
20 70 104
0
26
0 01 Drain
88
0 11 103
0 20 52 102/1 102/1
98
0 01 Drain
89
0 07 84 Pt
0 31 59 84 Pt.
04 64
0
Drain
88
0 20 XO
80
0 01 Drain
Road MDR-43
40
0 05
09 36
0
81/1 . 81/2
0 27 89 77/1/1 77/1/2 77/2 77/3
00 66 75
0
17 82
0
74/1 74/2
20 16
0
76/1 76/2 76/3 76/4
0 07 34 71/1 71/2 7718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMHHR 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 |I'A*I II -Si-e 3(n)|
Area
Name of Village
Survcy/Gata No.
Area
Name ol" Village
Survey/Gala No.
Arc Sq.
IlLf-
Are
Ijlrcs
Mis.
Hec-
tares
Sq, Mm.
11. Anchado
57
04 26
0
00
0
46 Drain
58
06 36
0
<)
30 Cart Track
39
05
0
02
03
15. Bhirdhone
75/1 n
50
18 55
0
14 04
0
36
0
05 78/1 78/2
00 71
Drain
0
52
0 23 69
0 00
Drain
31
24 01
0
K5 81
60 76
0
Cart Track
00 50
0
16. Mukti
0 68 66 224/1 224/2
08
0
32
33/1
33/2
0 02
l>rain
23 30/1
01
0
02
231
11
0
09 30/2
0
232/1
29
0 36 38
12 96
0
233/1
14 22 Drain
12. Vajirkhede
06 63
0
234/1A
11
12 76
0
2J4/1C
00
Road MDIM2
0
76
39
0
99 234/ID/! A 234/2
10
0 15 92
13. Chinchkhede
Drain
0 03 79
260/1
260/2/2
0 34 56 260/2/3 260/2/4
0
38 96
0
48/1
48/2-1
48/2B
48/3
17
261
12 06
0
49/1
0
04
0
Drain
03 92 49/2
Drain
0 16 39
0 15 22 262
0 15 12 30/1 50/2
0
Road, VR-23
51
25 47
0
00
02 34 Drain
0
34
17. Kasvihir
Cart Track
01 53
0
43/1-1
43/1-2
41/1-3
61/1
56 16
0
0 44 83 61/2 61/3
00 20
60
0
0 30 43
62/1A
62/1B
43/1-4
43/1-5
43/2-1
43/2-2
43/2-3
43/2-1
43/2-5
RoadODR-110
60
0 02
18. Nsndale Khurd
37 21
0 24 K9 63/1
0
56/1
J6/2
63/4
06
0
30 NH-6
00 72
0
Cart Truck
51/1/1
18 18
30
0
90 64/1A
0
34 20
69
0
31 01
j 1/ J.
30
0 10 67
0
18
11 67/1A 67/1A-2
0
49/1
49/2
04 60
Drain
0
03 92
22
0
03
0
47 48
14. Amdad
0 05 75 52/1 52/2 52/3 7719
Name of Village
Survey/Gal a No.
Area
Name of Village
Survey/Oata No.
Area
Are
Are
Hec-
tarcj
Sq.
Mts.
Hec-
tares
Sq. Mts 40/1-1
0
19. NogaonKhurd
0 16 20
99
00 6/1D1 6/2 6/3/1
40/1-2
40/I/3A
40/2
0
Drain
39
01
0
64
80
01
20. Amhodc
29
0
01
35
0
04
14 441/1 441/2 441/3
08 97
0
10
0 35 442
30/1
30/2
30/3
30/4
27
18
0
53
0
30
46 449/1 449/2 449/3/1 449/3/2
0
25
20 42
24
0
96
12
463
0
49
17 N.H. 6 Road
96
0 03
24
0
65 462/1 462/2 462/3
74
23
0 07
04 Drain
60
0 21
0
32
0
77
53 466/1 466/2A 466/2B
71/1
71/2
71/3
71/4/1
71/4/2
46 Car Track
00
0
71/3
01 Drain
60
36
0
63
0
72/1
72/2/1
74
47
0 44 Cart Track
0 00
474/1
474/2A
474/2B
474/2C
77
0 32 22
Drain
28 44
0
48
0 00 82/1 82/2
Dram
60
0 03
0 38 33 475/1 475/2
36
0 45
40
00 83/1 83/2 83/3/1 83/3/2 83/3/4
0
484/1
484/2A
484/2D
00 63
Road, VR-73
0
00 40 Drain
08 28
0
Kanh"ri River
0
84
0 19 80
476
69 62
0
01
0
42 Drain
19.NagaonKhurd
395
0 15 59
36
0 09 Drain
46
33
0
40 04 396
0
98 397
21
0
43
0
62 398/1 398/2 39X/3 39K/4 398/3
1/1/A1
1/A2
1/A3
1/C2
1/C4
1/B
1/C/l
1/D/l
1/D2/B
1/D2/A
l/C-3
1/1A2
1/1/-A3
55 80
0
399
0 16 93 400
0 25 25 7/1 7/2A 7/3
00 90
0
Road, VR-30
6/1A
0 37 80
21. Salamc
6/1 B-l
7 7 20
T I IE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : D E C E M B ER 2 9, 2 0 0 1 / P A U SA 8, 1 9 23 Name of Village
Survey/Oal No.
Area
Name of Village
Are
Hec-
Sq.
tares
Mts.
21. Salarnc—Contd.
173
0 31 86 22. Mohadi (Pra Dangai)
38
0
70
172/1 172/2
Drain
0 00 59
174
37
0
43
217
0 02 70
216
0 20 88
Curl Track
0 00 45
167
0 62 10
Drain
0 03 24
Road, VR-130
0 01 44
16ft
0 16 38
153
38
0
64
Drain
0 00 26
XX
11
0
154
Cart Track
00
0
94
152
0 19 98
0
47
Curt Track
00
24
4X
93
0
36
0
72
214' 1A 2142 214 11)
19
0
98
213,1 213 2
R™d. ODR-92
0
52
02
0
40
14
76 1 76 2
0
77
03 48
7K 1
0 20 32
78 2
44
01
0
]>rnin
44
0
82
64 1 64 2-1 64 2 11-1 64 2 2 1 2 64 2 2 2 64 2 2 1-1-2 64 2 2 1 1-2
64 2-2 1-2
90
27
0
72
0 20 34
63
0
66
C\irt Track
[ P A RT • —S KC 3 ( h )]
Survey/Oai No
Area
Sq.
Arc
Hec- tarcs
Mts.
Drain
00
0
54
0 37 77 166/1 166/2
0 00
Cart Track
90
0 47 70 162/1 162/2
Cart Track
0 00 72 Drain
0 04 50
0
13O/A-1/2
66 06 Cart Track
0 00 54 128
37
0
38
0 09 90 129/1 129/2
0 01 Drain
26 125
0 44 10
00 90 Drain
0
01 Mohadi Road
0
80 80/1 80/2/1
44
0
64 80/2/2 80/2/3 80/2/4
07
0
74 81/1 81/2
0 08 46 83/1 83/2
78
0 12 16
0
K4
02 88
0 00 Drain
54 X5
35
0
10 86
24
0
48
00 Cart Truck
90
0
0 23 72/2
76
25 56 73
0
03 09 Road. VR-43
0
71
25
0
20
25 38
0
70,1 70 2
0
79
16 60 1 60 2A
60'2n 7721 3854 QI/2001—47722 TItR GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 772.17724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 7725
New Delhi,, the 21st December, 2001
S. O. 3490.—Wheras it appears to the Central
Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum products from the Pancwadi (Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manglya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by Hharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user of 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 of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rights of user therein;
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Ga/elie of India containing this notification arc made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V P Pathak, Competent Authority, Mumhui- Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Hharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 26, Park Road, Indorc-452003 (Madhya Pradesh)
SCMKDtlLK
TdiMl Indore District Indore S1,uc : Madhya l'nidush
Niime ol Village
Survuy No
Area in Iloctare
1. Kulilnyu
327(GL)
0.0383
.126
0.0924
328/1
0.1805
328/2
328/3
32")
0.0804
.147/1
0.3968
347,2
0.0288
348
.146(01.)
0.0.197
342 1
0.0223
.142'2
0 0513
341 (Nil 39)
184
0 0814
18J/1
0 0768
185 2
185,3
185/4
0.0812
186/1
186/2
182/1
0.1088
182'27726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA H. 1923 [PART II—See. 3{ii)]
Name of Village
Survey No.
Aro" m Hectare
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
180/1
Kslariya—Contd
0.0108
202/2
Dhamavad—Conld.
180/2
0.0324
lOl(OCT)
180/3
0.0046
198 (O. Drain)
180/4
0.3967
190/1
0.0899
180/5
190/2
0.1030
180/6
189
0.3310
180/7
179 (O. Drain)
0.0360
180/8
178/2
0.0635
88/379
0.0030
172/2/1
0.0864
88/378
0.0309
0.0 ISO
177(OL)
88
0.1897
172/2/2
0.0668
87/1/1
0.2112
0.0693
man
172/3/4
0,0535
87/1/2
87/1/3
172/2/5
0.2424
87/2
173/1
91
0 2431
00361
0.0216
174
90/1
0.278ft
172/3
0.0108
90/2
I6I(OL)
0.0136
3. SavliaKhodi
96,97,99 (all
0.1033
159/1
0.1000
sub
159/2
0.0313
IO2(GCT)
0.2800
158
109/1
0.0800
0.0972
157(OL)
109/2
156
03731
109/3
151
0.7345
108
0.1704
0.0808
135
0,0151
107(OL)
134
0.0589
067J7
106/1
133/1
0.1964
0.0400
103/1
133/2
103/2
133/3
2. Dhiunavad
0.0400
229";i.)
131/1
0.2953
0.0400
228/1
131/2
228/2
131/3
0 1200
107
131/4
2IN
0 1211
128/1
0.2710
216
0.0792
128/2
0.0720
219/2
0.1830
124/1
0.1528
219/1
124/2
0.3464
220/2/2
197/1
0.2124
0.0020
119
197/2
0.2111
im/i, 116/1
197/3
118/2, 116/2
197/4
0.0798
120/1
0 2016
209
120/2
208
0.0216
117/1/1
0/1184
0.01X0
199/1
117/1/2
7727 NameofVHIaga
Survey No.
Aram Hectare
Nut* of Village
Survey No,
Area in Hectare
Savila Khedi-Contd
114/1
6, Junbunii-Hap"
399
0.0464
596/1/1
114/2
59671/2
114/3
0.2768
0.2599
396/1/3
114/4
3960/1
114/3
396/2/2
113
0.0144
386
0.4133
4. PipHyaTafa
110/1
384
0.3336
110/2
0.3148
383/3/1
0.1180
no/3
583/3/2
110/4
J82(GL&OCT)
0.0498
104
0.0876
370/1
0.3312
99/1
0.1793
370/2
99/2
371/1
0.2592
99/3
371/2
0.0207
97
372/1/1
0.1431
100(O. Drain)
0.0406
572/1/2
30
3. RiqjIalJagir
0.3183
572/2
29
0.1133
333/1/1
0.3708
28
0.1246
553/1/2
33
0.1276
353/2
34/1
354/1
34/2
554/2/1
0.1696
34/3/1
0.6236
554/2/2
34/3/2
550/1
0.103$
34/4
350/2
34/5/1
from preview page
551/1
34/5/2
0.0010
351/2
1
0.0837
551/3
0.0140
211,210(OCT)
203/1
162/1
0.0504
20J/2
0.1260
162/2, 163/1/1
203/3
161
0.3017
204
0.2140
160/1
0.0476
10
160/2
0.0344
70(0, Drain)
0.1370
160/3
102/1/1
0.8339
102/1/2
160/4
102/2
164
0.1476
102/3, 103, 104,
165/1/1
105. 106
165/1/2
0.3001
0.1102
109
0.1131
165/2
101
0.1001
100
165/3
0.2423
21
169/1/1
24
0.1921
169/2/
0.4680
00846
23 7728 Tin- GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923 |P.\m II Srr 3(ii)| Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare Jamburdi-Hapsi—Contd. 153/1/1
0 3260
153/1/2
153/2
141/1/1
141/1/2
141/2/1
141/2/2
0.6872
141/3/1
141/3/2
141/3/3
120
0.0172
106(GL&OCT)
0.1388
170/1
7. Budhaniya
170/2
0.3797
170/3
171 (Road)
0.0531
172/1
0.2277
172/2
172/3
173/1
0.1634
175
0.5842
409/1
0 0064
397
0.1608
396/1
0.2056
396/2
387
0.1843
385/1
0.2197
0.0365
384
00101
362
52(OCT)
0.0133
345
0.02J4
346/1
0.2702
346/2
0.1979
347/1
0.0398
347/2
0.2356
349
348
0.2528
0 1794
340/1
340/2
0.1866
340/3
0 1461
338
0.0032
0.0302
340/J
Name of Village
Sur\u\ No
Area in I L'Liarc
0.0300 X l'.iljkhcdi
1
91
0 3157
90.3/3
0.0311
0 1259
90/2/2
90 2/1
0 1251
90,1 2
0 143 1
90.1 '3
0 0710
X9
0 4619
KK.'l
0.1 1X0
XX/2
0 1510
K5 1 , 2 ( G C T)
ION
0 0065
X7/1/1
0 3113
86/1
0,0022
86/2
0 2 11 X
0 23X5
87/1/2
72/2
0.0227
X7/1/3/1
0 0036
73/1/1
0 0251
71/1/1/K
0 1095
21/5
0 2X30
71/1/1KII
0 0684
21/6
0.0020
71/1, 71/2K
0 0303
21/4
0 1220
0.1271
64
22/5
0 1055
61
0 0502
23
0.2014
60/1
0 (JOSS
34/1/1/2
0 01X0
34/1/1/1
0.2722
31
0.0546
25/2/1
0 0344
0.0010
30
29/2
0.1323
179/1
0 0115
178/2
0.1056
0.1290
176
0.0220
1X1 (O. Drain)
0.02X0
186
185
0 1179
0 3034
1X4/2/2
183
0 1330
1X2/2,275
0 0704
182/3
276
0.1290 uy> Name of Village
Survey No
Area in Hectare
9, Limbodagari
193/1, 1882
0 010X
192 (GL)
0 1965
438/1
438/2
0.2906
438/3
4J8
0 2617
457/2
0.0253
456/1/2
0 0743
456/1/1
0 2 1 34
456/2
0,0244
453
0 0426
454/2
0 3402
454/1
00112
452/2
0.0777
461/4
00158
451
0.2262
463
0 3191
466/1
0 4825
468/1
0 3393
468/2
476/3/4
0 1161
476'3/3
410/1
0 2043
410/2
MO) 0 0549
40'J (Rly Line,
403
0.0612
0 0920
402
400
0.2129
0 0321
390 (GL)
3'J4
0 2917
0 0135
393
0 1316
390 (GL)
3XX
0.0200
0 2519
389
0 0695
1X2/2, 383/2/2
0 4587
381
0 0011
380/2/2
0.1407
391 (GL)
1
0 0396
10 Sakkarkhcdi
0 0396
2/1
0 0168
65
|1:. No R-31015/25/2001-OIMI1
HARISlf KUMAR, Under Secy.
3854 QI/2001—57730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 77317732 Till'; GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAtJSA 8, 1923 [PART II- -Sue 3(ii)j 77 ) < New Delhi, the 21 si December, 2001
Area in HCCMI'I:
Name of Village
Survey No
0 014.)
Tikri—Contd
6/2
6/3
0 0791
6/4
0 0.116
0 2700
7
S. O. 3491.—Whereas it tippers to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Petroleum products from the Pancwadi (Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manplya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by Dharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
0.2132
8
3
0.0282
0.1296
4
And whearas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user of land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;
0.3290
4. Sherpura
36/2
0.0K45
36/3/2
0 2305
36/3/1
0 2950
36/1
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;
0 0543
39 (O. Drain)
0.0232
40,42
0 4176
41
0.3748
30/2 27/1
0.2792
27/2
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V. P. Pathak. Competent Authority, Mumbai, Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Potroleum Corporation Limited 26, Park Road, Indorc-452003 (Madhya Pradesh).
27/3
SCHEDULE
26
6.0512 Tehnil: Thikri District: Badwani Stale : Madhya Pradesh
0.1584
3. Scgwal
28
0.0830
261 (G. Drain)
Area in Hectare
Name of Village
Survey No.
0.1512
362
1. Jarvaya
186/3
0.1383
0.1080
263/1
0.0377
190(Road)
0.0960
264/1
217
0.1454
0.0288
249/1/2
0.068J
222(OL)
263/2,264/2(Cannn
0.0216
0.0324
220
0 3816
265
0.0954
208(Borad River)
0.1008
266(GL)
2. Khedi
36
0.6688
267(Road)
0.O216 33/2
0.0722
0.0216
268(Road)
0.0760
32/1
0.0216
269(koad)
31
0.2166
0.4320
272/l(OL)
29
0.2128
00216
272/2(OL)
28/3
0.1140
0.2232
280(OL)
28/4
0.1026
281/1
25
0.0114
282/2
0.1440 24/1
0.1872 24/3
0.0648 24/4
282/1 282/2 287/3
0.3646
24/5
0.1440 24/6
24/2 (Canal)
0 0304
284/2 K 284/2 KH 284/1 K 284/1 KH
3. Thikri
12/1
0.2260
286/1, 286/2
0.1808
12/2
307/1/2
0.0720 12/3 /M4 u rn i m ^ ti it ur INUIA : ubct-Mj^JiK ^y, ^UUI/IJAUNA 8, ly^J 11JAHT II—SEC. 3(II)|
Aroa in declare
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
Name of Village
Survey No
Segwal—Contd.
342/1
0.2088
Sirsala—Contd.
114/2(Pond)
0.1130
.142/2
113(Nalional Highway
0 0 0210
0.1116
349(Pond)
112(NationalIIighwa5
r) 0.0203
35O(G.Drain)
0.0144
111 (National Highwa y) 0.0643
347/1
0.2160
109 (Pond)
0.0390
346
0.0288
360
0.1296
108/2(G. Drain)
0.1018
107/2(Pond)
0.1129
359(Pond)
0.0216
106/2(Pond))
0 1480
91/2(Pond)
0 0216
358(Pond)
0.0216
90(I'ond)
0.1440
341(I>ond)
0.0216
l!9(Pond)
0.0X64
361/1
H6/1(Pond)
0.3571
361/2
0.0705
K6/2(Pond)
0 0473
361/3
" 5/1 (Pond)
0 0324
340 (Pond)
0.0760
84/2(Po.id)
0.2209
.168/1
0.2376
0 4096
K3/l(Pond)
36X/2
7 Khurampura
6 (Abadi)
0 0684
337/1
0.0576
9
0 0224
337/2
7
0.2490
335
0.0936
334
11/1/1/1/1/1/1
0.1080
336/l(Pond)
1 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 /2
0.1008
336/2
1 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 /3
1 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 /2
323/4
0 4392
1 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 /3
323/3
1 1 / 1 /4
323/2
206
6. Sirsala
1 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 /5
0.1913
205(G. Drain)
11/1/1/1/1/6
0.0144
204
0.13O1
203_
0.1605
11/1/1/1/1/7
11/1/1/1/2
11/1/2
1 1570
202(01,)
0.1585
11/1./1/3
179/1
0.0684
11/1/1/5
179/2
11/1/1/6
179/3
11/1/1/7
188
0.4983
11/1/1/8
189
0.0217
11/1/1/2
190
0.0430
11/2
0.3344
124,123)126
5 "'
0 1396
114/1/5
0.0015
10
0.1008
114/1/4
0.0408
12
0.1440
0.0680
114/1/3
13
0.0395
0.0681
114/2
14
0.3449
0.0804
114/1
Nume of Village
Survey No. Area in Hectare Khurampura — Contd.
I(OL)
0.2277
7735 Name ol'Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare Barsalay - Contd.
320/1
320/2/5
15,13/234.15/233
0.3648
16/1/1(GL)
0.2707
16/225
0 3072
0.0180
2S
29,16/1/2
0.0648
.10,16/1/3
0 0684
0,0324
37
0(1425
38
50
0t)l4*
51/11
j ri
51.2
51 2 1
51 .1/1
52
o:S5*
1
OD57A
0 in. I x 1 cm l.i
3.12
0 0137
14N
324
0 072(1
0 0X64
323
115.316,3 IK
0,7252
344.343
0 7038
0 01X8
133(GI.)
14^ 1 14^ 2 1453
0 1512
314.320
0,1836
127.32X.322
0 6.336
140 i(c;i.)
0 5128 -
0 0140
l(,4 n>)
0 1404
,HX
0 1440
0 064X
115.120 (IS DRAIN)
114
0 0927
320/3 K
320/3 KH
0.4469
320/3 O
320/4
320/5
320/6
320/7
319
0 199';
317
0 3672
316/1
0.1663
316/2
316/3 84/1
0.0357
84/2 86/1
0 1499
86/2
85 (OCT) 90
0.0214 0 0499
ll",I19SubDiv No 121/2/1
1.2309
134/1/1
134/1/2
134/2
0 0713
134/3
0.3326
143/3/1 143/2/3
143/4/1
143/2
0.2784
144/Ho 144'11 172/1
0.3950
172/2
0 3672
173 1711
1712
'i ninil.nm.i
0 0X49
z
0 6326
1 1 I(> 1 6 & (Jm. N o)
0 1301
•s 1.5 2
hi l>,irv.ihi\
0 0071
11X
0.4573
146 10 1
0 5197
146 5
14h (,
U(i 7
14li S
14(, 9
14d 10 2
145
0 5959
0 0357
342.3.3')
11X 1 I k. 33X 1 2
0 3500
118 1 IK.11,338 2
138 1 Hi
117
0 0370
333 1
0.1663
111 2
334 1
0.1593
0 0535
I'M
0 1570
200
0 0450
0.1178
2012,202 20.3
0 0107
204 •
0 0554
205/1'1,
205/2/2
0 7414
205 2 1 24X
0,0762
247i:i/1(Ci DrniiO
0 0214
246
0 5783
247,1/1/2
0,0107
225'1
0,6068
225,2,230/2
225/3
230/3
230 '6'2
230:9
0 1285
230/1/1/4
230/1/1 2.11
0 5069 7736 THE CiAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 200I/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART II---SEC. 3(ii)] 7737
2$s~tiu{tA"*\-&
7738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA8,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 21 December, 2001 S.O. 3492.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Petroleum products from the Panewadi (Manmand) 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 laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user of 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 of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intension 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 copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the 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, Shri V.P. Pathak, Mumbai-Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 26, Park Road, Indore^52003 (Madhya Pradesh).
SCHEDULE
Village : Dhar District: Dhar State : Madhya
Pradesh Name ofVillage
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
0.2418 1. Sordyapura
148/1
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare Sordyapurn.—Cotrtd
151
0.0693
144
0.0940
153
0.1970
154
0.0850
155
0.2037
156
0.1006
157
0 1593
139 (GCT)
0.0424
13S
0.0232
134
0.0814
133
0.0673
132
0.0591
12S
0.0016
131/1
0.1195
0.0444
1.11/2
129/1
0.3034
129/2
0.0003
130
2. Gallamahudi
45(GL)
0.0570
46
0.1996
48 GL (Proposed Forest)
0.3065
13
0.0998
12
0.2851 3. Pirghati
27 (River)
0.0100
0,0600
28 (River)
26/1
0.1400
26/2
21/1
0.1922
21/2
0.0883
24
22(River)
0.0525
15/1 K
0.2752
15/1KH
15/1G
15/2
5
0.2026
0.0071
16(GCT)
4/2
0.3086
3 (GCT)
0.0272 4. Ambapurt
13/1
0.2439
13/2
14(OCT)
0.0731
0.0072
12 (O. Drain)
5 Adabarda
28 GL (Proposed Forest)
0.0360
0.1764
7
8
0.0089 7739
Name of Village
Survey No
Area in Hectare Name of Village
Survey No Area in Hectare
Adabarda—Contd.
5
0.1601
Jamanjhiri—Contd
77/2
4
0.2952
77/3
78
21 OL (Proposed Forest)
0.1596
0 1782 3
00516
0 2366
88(PAIIAD)
2
0.2880
Jamanjhiri-fContd.)
K3 82(PAHAD)
0 1925 0.0642 25, 26, GI. (Proposed Forest) 0.2004
81(RIVliR)
0.0214
0.0099
1 (GCT)
85/1
0 1853 6. Bhurakuva
17/1
0.7182
85/2
17/2
85/3
0.0428
3 (GCT)
85/4
0.1069
23(GL)
85/5
0.2294
2/1
85/6
2/2
10. Kiihbel
46 OL (Proposed Forest)
0.4706
16 (RIVER) 19/1
0.0601 0.1525
0 0036
1
19/2
7. Junidhal
0.0125
3 6 (0 Drain)
0 0449
20 (O.DKAIN)
0 2994
14
0.1829
21/1
0.1241
26
21/2
0.3136
22
24/1
0.2464 21
0.1925
24/2
0.0844
20
24/3
0.0174
24(GL)
24/4
19
0.0031
24/5
30,31 (AjnarRivor)
0.1366
24/6
S. Dhal
75 GL (Porposcd Forest)
0.0285
25/1
0.2484
0 1497
48
25/2
52
0 2038
18
0.0503
0.1525
40
17
0,1476
0.0228
J3 (DRAIN)
29
0.0286 89 Gl .(Proposed Forest)
0.0397
30
0.0053
0 0082
87 GL(Proposed Forest)
15
0 2982 88 GUProposcd Forest)
0.0214
13/1
0.1080
0 0068
83(NH3)
13/2
0.0055
82(NII3)
0.0060
81(NII3)
14 39/1
0.0720 0 06 5 4
0.0214
80(NH 3)
39/2
0.1189
9. Jamanjhiri
37 (River)
39/3
0 1925
65/1
39/4
65/2
42/1
0.1558
0 2780
66
42/2
0.4063
60/1
41(OI., ABADI)
0.0248 60/2
44/1
0 1078
0 3564
58/1
44/2
58/2
40(GCT)
0 0055
0 0071
57
10/1
0 1493 3854 GI/2001—77740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
Kalibd—Cortd.
8
0.1614
7/1
0.2232
7/2
7/3
46/1
0.0761
46/2
46/3
47/1
0.0720
47/2
47/3
47/4
1 (RIVER)
0.0761
[F. No. R-31013/36/2001-O R-II]
HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
77417742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART H- -SEC. 3(ii)] 7" 1 % 3854 GI/2001—87744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PARI' II SEC. 3(ii)| 77457746 IIIK GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 IPAOT II— SKC. 3001 New Delhi, the 28th December, 2001 S. O. 3493.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Petroleum products from the Pancwadi (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 whearas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user of 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 of User in Land) Act. 1%2 (50 or 1%2), 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 Ihc date on which copies of the Ga/cttc of India containing this notification arc made available to the public, object in writing lo the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority. Shri VP Pathak Mumbai—Manmad Pipeline Extension Project. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 26. Park Road, lndore-452003 (Madhya Pradesh)
SC'HKim.K
Tehsi 1 Dhnrumpuri Dislncl liudwuni Slate . Madhya fradesh Name ol Village
Survey No
Area in Hectare 1 (iujan
84
0 0778
77
0 1160
79
0 1203
7X
0.0.187
0.0071
XI
75
0 29IX
0,0071
74
0 0249
6X(C,CT)
0 3X4.1
(,7. 1
0 0085
15J'5O(CiCT)
40-1
49/2
0 1065
40 1
0 0071
•IX
0.04X7
11
0 0.155
l'J(C;L'l')
0 22.16
12
0 1040
11
0.0256
10.1
10 2
0 4
0 0071
93
0.12X2 Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare Uujari—Contd.
9/2
0 0221
X
0.4761 2 Dehriya
0.1529
22(Karam Kiver)
23/1/1 23/1/2
0.203X
23/2 23/3
2X
0 0125
29/5
0.1220
29/4
0 156X
29/3
0.0109
0.1273
30/1 30/2 30/3
0 1X97
29/1/1 29/1/2 29/2/3
17
0.1354
20/2
0.0551
20/1
0.0143
l'J(CiCT)
IS
0.0429
15
0.2766 3. Siraodiya
351/1
351/2
0.1320
351/3
.151/4
350
0,1021
0.0214
349 (C1I.)
347/1
347/2
347/3
0.4002
347/4
347/5
347/6
379 (GL)
0 2650
344,343
0.1983
393 (GL)
0 2403
394
0 2431
0 3190
337
33 X
0 0X2O
332/1
332/2
0.1308
332/3
0 0998
331 (Ol.)
315/1 To315/14
314
0.2279 0 0178
313/1
0.1997
.113/2 313/3 313/4 313/5 313/6 313/7
0.1568
300 Name oi Village
Area in I Iectaro
Survey No.
Sirsodiya -Conld
0.3350
294/1 294/2 294/3/1 294/3/2 294/3/3 294/3/4 294/3/5
288, 285, 286,287
0 1215
284
0.4178
283/479
0.0191
2X0 (G Drain)
0.0334
0.1747
221
0.03J6
225
227/1
0.2160
227/2
0.1018
228/1
228/2
0 0456
229
0.0155
233,232
0.0006
230
170/1/1 179/1/2
0.1220
179/2 179/3
183
0.2621
0.1872
182/1 To 182/9
0 O53X
1X4 (OCT)
0.0467
U.7
185,186,187
0.1215
131/2
0 2583
0 0341
R 2 / 2 N H3
X2/1
0 4472
74-1/1
0 0772
0 2355
75:1,75/2, 74/1/2, -76/], 75/3,74/1/3, 76/2
5X
0.0184
0 1675
14(](Knnun River)
4 d'hiktyavad
519
0 1931
0 1404
520/1
502/1
502/2
0.1521
502/3
501
0.1170
500
0.1580
497
0 0819
492
0 0175
496
0 03X3
0 0X19
495
494 (OI,)
0.1580
433 (O. Drum)
0.0029
432";L)
0.0356
7747 Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare 3. Lodhipura
77
0.3473
Xl/1
0.1584
0.0743
81/2 81.3
80 (O. Drain)
0 0.212
33 (GL)
0.0036
32
0.3920
31
0.0642
30 (GL)
0.1853
29/3
0.1150
29/2
0.1373
28
0.0247
27
0 0594
-8/1
8/2
8/3
0.2428
8/4
8/5
10
0.1158
11
0.1809
1(NH3)
0.0713
194/2
0.2171
194/1
0 0499
195/1/1
193/1/2
195/2
0.2922
195/3
195/4
0.1845
196/1 196/2
192
0.0724
166(G. Drain)
0 0308
126
0 3635
125
0 0549
124
0 1003
123
0.0097
122
0.0688
120
0.0036
117
0 0242
67
0.04X5
68
0.1118
70
0.1624
72,71
0.0796
73
0.1069
74
0 1592
76(GL)
0.0307
78/1
0.0172 6. Dudhi
69
0 2496
73
0.1855
72
0.1573
7KOL)
0.0899
35
0 0990774R THE OAZETTE OK INDIA : DECEMBER 29. 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 |l'Aifi II S ir Hii)|
Name ol'Village
Survey No
Area in Hectare
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
Aklarakhur .1—Contd.
14/1
0.1046
34
—— • t
Dudhi Conld.
0.2615
0 0162
33
0,2240
14/2
14/3
IK
0.2061
19
118/1.118/2
8 Ouljhari
0 0238
(Ciinal & CiCT)
20/2
0.0345
99
0.3606
29/1
0.5438
29/2/1/2
0.3560
29/1/1
0.0001
26/3
0.0512
27
102/1 102/2
101
0.0351
105/1
105/2
0.0352
0.0565
28(NH3)
I05/.1
0 0239
152(OL)
106
0 1740
0.4365
100/1,47/1
0 0806
131/1 151/2
0.3758
147
143/2(GL)
0.1293
0.3058
157
0.1872
85/1
83/2
85/3/1
85/3/2
0.0223
145/1(GL)
84
0.1872
159/1
0.0035
86
0.1440
144/2 KH
0.4440
81
0,0720
144/1
0.0051
144/2
0.0740
144/3
0.0363
126/3
0.1753
135
0.2192
0.0159
128
87
0.1152
88
0.0288
66
0.4833
0.1683
0.0002
134
0.0106
129
132
0 0715
0.0891
131
65/1/1 63/1/2 65/1/3 65/2 65/3 65/4/1 65/4/2 65/3
119/96
0.1144
0.0221
121(GL)
57
0.3102
0.0674
133(G. Drain)
34 (C)C'n
0 1362
0.0906
63
53
0.1980
0.0461
64
52/4
0.1580
0.1123
61
0.2360
0.4922
26
7 Akiarnkhurd
0.2649
25
24/1
24/2
8/1 8/2
9
0 2894
59/1/1
59/1/2
0.0936
0.0036
24/3
24/4
24/5
23
59/2
9 Bikhrun
0.0764
0.2816
0.1064
22
0.1969
21
20
0.1121
0.3772
19
18
0.0036
477/1/1 477/1/2 477/1/3 477/1/4 477/2/1 477/2/2 477/2/3
0.1350
473/1 475/2
0.3788
17
0.2255
471,473/1 473/2
0.0288
42/1A (Canal)
472
0.1704
0.1725
42/1B
42/2
467, 469
0.3290 7749 Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare
Bikhrun—Contd.
Uikhrun—Contd.
0,0944
465,466
0.2843
324,323
0 0651
321,320
322
0.0451
0.1328
0.0259
462/1
462/2
462/3
462/4
462/5
250/1,250/2
(Canal & GCT)
0.2880
0.1978
258
489/1
489/2
257/1
0.1364
0.1872
257/2
434/1
454/2
256
0.1646
490/1,490/2
(Canal & GCT)
0.0216
255
0 0755
453/1
0.2016
212
0.0432
4J3/2
0.0838
236
451/1
0.0438
0.0868
235
451/2
217
0.2252
450
0.1607
0.0238
224/1,224/2
(Cunal & CJCT)
455 ( 0. Drain)
0.0338
10. KJifllkhurd
42
0.0515
449
0.0345
43
0.0165
414
0.3888
0.5434
38
415/1
0.0145
0.0600
41 (OL)
415/2
39
0.3160
420
0/1320
19
0 2186
419
0.3312
IX
0.4271
356/1
0.0176
17
0.2490
424 (O. Drain)
0.0293
0 0040
2
355/1
.1
0.4626
0.1944
6(GI.)
0.0447
355/2
355/3
355/4
11. Sundrcl
354
72H
0 0669
0.1584
12. Sala
0.0432
344/1
344/2
0.1931
346
0.1008
20/1/1K
20/1/1 KU
20/1/2
20/2
20/3
347/1
1AH ft)
0.1171
21
0.1075
24
0.3X32
347/*
347/3/1
347/3/2
25
0.0036
0.0468
330/1,350/2
(Canal & GCT)
27/1/1.27/1/2K
313/1
0.5383
0.1404
315/2
27/1/2KI1
27/2/2,27/2/1
27/3
27/4
315/3
27/5
0.0145
327
2N/3
326
0 1943
0.1149
0.1119
2H/2
01194
0.1194
325/1
323/2
12/1
12/2
7750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923 [PART D --St/\ 3(n)lName of Village
Survey No.
Area in Hectare Snla—Could
0.2347
n
10
0.1416
0.3429
109.1
109/2
0.2189
106/1 106/2
0.0210
108
0.0101
120(GCT)
105
0.1058
0.3676
89
K6/]
0.0506
86/2
K6/3
0.1373
85
0.2938
280/74/3
0.0065
Cuiml (280/74/2)
0.0288
280/74/1
75/1/1
0.3847
75/1/2,75/2
76/1/1
76/1/2
0.1922
76/2
76/3
76/4
0.1513
55
0.0810
54
0.0549
139(OCT)
13. I.unhcra
0.0804
162(River)
0 3 2 14
161/1/1(GI,)
154/1
154'2/1
0.2192"
154/2/2
0.0573
153
0.0306
151
152/1
0.0369
152/2
0.0076
14K(OL, Abadi)
0 0082
150/1
150/2
135/1
(1.0039
135/2
0.0088
140
102
0.0036
0 0557
137/1
Name of Village
Survey No
Area in Hectare Ijiinhera—Conld.
119(OCT)
0.0438
0 1082
118/1,118/2
103
0.0121
113/1
0.1899
104
0 0771
93(Road)
0.0420
88/1,92
0 1007
88/2
X9
0 2542
132
0 0036
133
0.0036
134
.00036
147
0.0036
87
0.2580
X4
0.1737
86 (GL)
0 0067
85/2/2
0.1051 14. Dugni
256(GL) •
0.4348
258
0 0977
0.0855
257
254/1
254/2
0.2673
234/3
234/4
251/1
0 1711
' 2 4 6 ( 0. Drain)
0 0143
248 (G, Drum)
0 0347
249 (GL)
0 0143
247
0 1 568
243/1
0 1711
243/2
0 0198
242 (G. Drain)
24,1
0 3065
230/1 (OL)
0.2281
234
0 1497
233 (G Drum)
o oi n
232
0 1160
22X
0 0966
227
0 0263
226
0.2069 138/1 l Ivn
HAUISIIKI'M \U. Under S e^ 7/51 staff posted af clearing house of Lucknow, Agra, Unnao, Varanasi and Kanpur as per list enclosed is justified? If not to what relief were the work- men entitled?"
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi, the 29th November, 2001 S.O.3494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tin; award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ol" Bank o!" India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-ll-;00l.
[No. L-12011/23/87-D(HA] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
2. In this case earlier this tribunal rendered its award dated 16-7-97 in favour of the workman which waspublished by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 28-7-97 in the Gazette of India The management of the Bank being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of this tribunal filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 9-4-2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8569 of 97 lemitted the matter to this Tribunal for deciding a fresh in the light of observations made in the judgment. Upon receipt of the copy of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court fresh notices were issued to the parties calling upon the lo file their respective claims.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R.P. PANDEYFRESID1NG OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 232 of 89 In the1 matter of dispute between Secretaiy
3. On 13-11-2001 when the case was taken up for hearing Sri Y.K. Arora, General Secretary of the Bank of India Staff Union, who raised the present industrial dispute moved an application before the tribunal stating that the issue raised in the industrial dispute has been going on for a long period since 1989 in different courts and in the meantime the issue raised in the industrial dispute has lost its relevance considering the change in service conditions of work* man staff in the bank and banking industry over these years. Under these circumstances the BOI Staff Union does not want to continue with tho industrial dispute against the bank and wish to with- draw the same as no dispute exists.
4. In view of the above statements made by the Union raising the present industrial dispute, the tribunal is left with no other option but to decide the reference against the Union for want of proof as there exists n-o dispute between the parties.
3S54 GI/2001—97751 THE GAZF/FTF, OF INDIA : DHCFMBFR :° 2001/FAUSA 8. 102:1 [P\m H - S K (. 3(ii)l New OclhL the :4th November, ?001 S.O. "495-- In Fiirsuiuue of Setcion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, [947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court-ll, Mumbai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was leceived by the Central Government on 28-11-2001.
[No. L-12Oll/25/99-IR(B-Tl)] C. O\NGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THK CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO II, MUMBAI PRESENT
S. N. Saundank;!!-
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2'169 of 1999
EMPLOYRRS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGE- MENT OF UNION BANK. OF INDIA The General Man;;Lei. UBI, Zonal Office,, Mumbai Samachar Mar;.-, Mumbai-400 021.
AND
THEIR WORKMAN The Genera! Secretary. Union Bank of India Kaimaehaii Sena, Union Bank Bhawan, Mumbai-400 022 APPEARANCT.S :
For the Employer : Mr. A. K. JalisaUji
Advocate
For the workmen : Mr. Jaipral-:;: ,h Spwanf
Advocate
Mumbai, dated 18th October, 2001
AWARD
The Government of. India, • Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-1201 1/25799/IR (B-U), dtd, 12/ 16-8-199$, in everci^e of the powers conferred by "clause fd) of suh-sedion C!) 'and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrie! Disputes 'Act, have referred the following • Intkislrinl Dispute to this .tribunal for adjudication :
• "Whether the action of the management of Union Bank ol India, Mumbai-for non-payment of telephone allowance to the blind Operators at par with the other able operator is justified '.' [f not, then what rdiel these four number ol blitu operators (below mentioned ) are entitled to ':"' 1. Shri Bhimji Kataiia
2. Mrs. Parvcsh Mehta
3. Shivaji NangraU
4. Chandbas Patu
2. The General Secretary of the Union Bank Karmachari Sena Mr. Tulaskar vide Statement of Claim (Fxhibit-4) pleaded lh;tt the Telephone Opera- tors named in the schedule are working in the bank and consequently attending to the work attached to the post of Telephone Operators with whatevei equip- ments/appliances given to them, and that to carry out the work they are necessary to be paid Special Allowance under the provisions of Bipartite Settle- ment as revised time to time, The union brought the same to the notice of the management, but, in vain. Therefore the union raised a dispute and hence the instant reference. The Management Union Bank of India, opposed the claim vide Wiitten State- ment (Gxhihit-6), contending that the blind operators arc not entitled to Special Allowance at par with able operators from the date of their appointments 3 The matter was consequently as seen from the record, after framing the issues at Exhibit- 9, was fixed for hearing and that union has filed affidavit (Exhibit-14) and that the unions General Secretary, Mr. Tulaskar was cross-examined by the manage- ment's- counsel on 12-6-20G1. On 27-9-2001 the management vide application (Exhibit—16) contended that the bank undertakes to pay telephone allowance to ihe blind operators named in the schedule at pai with other able operators, after making calculations. In response to tha', the union vide purshis (Exhibit- 17) contended thar since management accepted the demand of the blind operators, incorporated in the schedule, the reference be disposed of, for non- prosecution. In view of the position tho reference will have to be disposed of and hence the order :
ORDER
Reference stands disposed of for non-prosecution vide (Exhibit-16 & 17).
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT MUMBAI Reference No. CGIT-2/169 of 1999
Between
Union Bank of India
And
Their Workmen represented by Union Bank Karmachari Sena.
MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL Union Bank of. India, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) crave leave to state and submit as under :
I. The above reference pertains to the demand of four operators that they should be given Telephone Operator's Special Allowanec. It is the case of the Bank that as per the Bipartite Settlement only those Telephone Operators who are operating a PABX Board with more than two external lines are entitled to the Telephone Operators' Special Allowance ant' that the demands of concerned four operators is therefore illegal, unjustified and untenable.
2. However, no the Central Management of the Hank has on its own taken a decision, in principle, to pay the Special Allowance for Telephone Operators to the workmen concerned in this Reference, irres- pective of whether they have operated PBAX Board with more than 2 external lines or not.
3. As verified Irom the records, out of 4 workmen concerned in this reference, Mr. B. S. Kataria and Mr. P. J. Mir/a are being paid said Allowance since beginning. However, in ease of other two concerned workmen viz., Mr. S. B. Nagrale and Mr. C. A. Pattu, they have not been paid Special Allowance for Telephone Operators during following period, as during this period, they were posted in Banches having PBAX Board with less than two external branches :
Name Period
(i) Mr. S. B. Nagrale 06-05-81 to 30-09-98 (ii) Mr. C. A. Pattu 22-12-83 to 31-03-97 4. The Bank as per its decision mentioned in Para 2 heieinabove, shall make the payment of Special Allowance for "Telephone Opeialors to these two Operators. However, as it pertains to a very long period, it will require some time for the Bank to calculate and pay the said Special Allowanec. The Bank undertakes to pay the said Allowance at the earliest.
5. In view of what is stated hereinabove the Bank submits that the demand of the workman and the Reference have become infructuous, and hence should be rejected/dismissed. It is accordingly prayed to this Hon'ble Court to reject/dismiss the Reference.
6. The Bank craves leave to add to, amend und make aUciations in what is stated hereinabove, as and when may deem just and necessary.
MUMBAI For Union Bank of India Date : 27the Sept. 2001 J.IX KAMBLE VERIFICATION
I, J.D. Kaniblc, Sr. Personal Manager of Union Bank of India do hereby verily and state that what is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of
7753 my personal knowledge. All the legal submission are based on legal advice which I believe to be true and correct.
Verified and signed at Mumbai on this 27th day of Septemher, 2001
J.D. Ramble,
For Union Bank of India BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, No 2, Mumbai Reference No. CClT-2/ 169 of 1999 Union Bank of India Vs. Their workman
Application for disposal ot the releretice for want nf prosecution
May it please your honour
the union submits that in view ol the management's application of Ex. 16. the demands covered in the Reference O de. stands resolved and, therefore, the union prays that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to dispose of the refeience order tor want of proseutions or not pressed. Mumbai (JAIPRAKASH SAWANT) Date 18-10-2001 Advocate fur tbeUrion New Delhi, 2H h November 2001
S.O. 3496. - In Pursuance- ot Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra! Government hereby publishes the awird of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Cbur1.. Chennai as shown in the annouire in the Industrial Dispute between the employe sin relation to the manage- ment of Punjab National Ban'c and their workman, which was received by the Cent.-al Government on 2H-U-01.
|N'o. I -!2n| |/140/^-1 R(B-H)] (. . G A N G A D H A R A N, Uiulcr Sec7754 THE GAZETTE Ol^ INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 20O1/PAUSA S. 1^23 [PART H ^ - S E C. 3 d i )l ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT CHENNAI Friday, the 2nd November, 2001 Present K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 733/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Comt CGID
No. I, 2000)
(In the matter of the dispute foi 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), bctwocn S.S. Rajan and the Management of Punjab National Bank, Chennai).
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, I Party/Chalimant Punjab National Bank Stall Union Chennai.
AND
The Senior Regional Manager, ][Party/Management Punjab National Bank, Chennai.
Appearance:
For the Climant Sri R. Subranianiam.
Advocate.
For the Managements : Sri V. Selvaraj, Senior.
Manager, PNB Authorised Rcpre-
sentiavivc
ORDER
The-Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following Industial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-120II/140/99-IR(B-U) dated 21-01-2000:
"Whether the Management of Punjab National Bank is justified in debarring Sri S.S. Rajan w.eJ. 29-12-19977 II" no o w'l'U relief 'he employee is entitled?"
2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, where it was taken on file as CGI. DNo. 1/2000. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Principal Labour Court, the Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer ot this case from that Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication. O;- receipt of records from that Principal Labour Court, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No 733/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel for the 1 Party and the authorised repre- sentative for the JI Party/MMia^iiKiit informing Ihui. about the transfer of ihis cast <.o this Tribunal wi h a direction io appeal before this Tribunal on 19-10-2001. On receipt of notice by the counsel for the I Party/ Claiw.en' and the authonsed representativ-c for ttoo II Paily Management on the appointed dated on 19-10- 2001, none of them were present, Hence the matter was adjourned to this day 2-11-2001 for eithei Party to this dispute to prosecute this dispute.
3. When the natter was taken up to-day, the authorised representative for the II Party/ Mana- gement, Punjab National Bank, Chennai, appeared and represented that the same-reference was already sent by the Ministry to this Tribunal which was taken on file by this Tribunal as I.D. No. 34/2000 and an Avva.d has been passed on 31st OUobe., 2000 itself He filed a memo to that edict and requested this Tri- bunal to close the refeience on the ground that the industrial dispute in question has aheady been adjudi- cated by thi Tribunal and an Awaid has been passed by this Tribunal on 31-10-2000 itself. Neither the 1 Paity/Unipn nor the counsel on record for the I Party appeared to-day.
4. On the peisusal oi records pertaining to I.D. No. 34/2033 tt is sjen that tho same reference has been sent to this Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour, Govt, ot India which was received on 3-8-2000 and was taken on file as 34/2000 on 4-8-2000. Further it is seen that the referred industrial dispute between the parties was adjudicated on merits and an Award was passed by this Tribunal on 3 MO-2000 itsielf and on receipt of this Award copy, Ministry of Labour, Government of Indi had sent Notification damd 8-11-2000. to the Manager,d Government of India Press, New Delhi to have the Award published in the Centra! Govt, Gazette and accordingly, the Award had been published in the Gazetted of India issued dated 2-12-2000 under Fait II Section 11:1(2).
5. In view of the above fact, and in view of the memo filed by the authorised representative for the [I Party/Management/Punjab National Bank, Chennai, this industrial dispute No. 733/2001 is dismissed, i-ince the same dispute had been disposed of by this Tribunal under ID No. 34/2000 and it has bjen duly published in the Government of India Gazette also. Hence, the concerned reference made earlier to Tamil Nadu Prini. cipal Labour Court, Chennai which was taken on file there as CGID No. 1/2000 and subsequently received on transfer and taken on file disposal is closed, as the concerned dispute has already been disposed of. (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 2nd November, 2001).
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Hrcsidin? Officer New Delhi, the 29 November, 2001 S.O. 3497. -In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II, Mumbai 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 28-11-2001.
[No. L-12011/209/2000-1 R(B-II)] C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI.
PRESENT
S.N.SAUNDANKAR PRESIDING OFFICER REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/114 of 2000. EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
The Dy. Gen. Manager, OBC, Maker Tower, 'E' Wing, 14th Floor, Cuffc Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The General Sccreary, Oriental Bank of Commerce Empls. Union, Jash Chambers, Gr. Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort. Mumbai 400 001.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer : Mr. Vijay Kantharia
Advocate.
For the Workmen : Mr. Umesh Nubur
Advocate, Mumbai.dated lOlh October, 2001.
7755
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-12011/209/2000/1 R(B-M). dtd. 29-1I- 2000, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d of Sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act have referred the following Industrial Disputes to this tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce by dismissing Shri Shankar Devdare from the si.: vices of the Bank is just and proper? If net, then what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. In response to the notice workman Shri Shankar Devdare appeared and filed his Statement of Claim (Exhibit-5) and that the same claim was opposed by the managemeni Oriental Bank of Com- merce vide Written Statement (ExhJbit-7). Conse- quently matter was today fixed for filing Rejoinder by the workman/union. However, both the parties con- tended vide settlement (Exhibit-8) that the matter has been settled and therefore Ihe reference be dispos of. Therefore following order is passed :
ORDER
Reference stands disposed of as settled vide (Exhi- bit-8)
S. N. SAUNDANK.AR, Presiding O.fl;;r BEFORE THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT BOMF3AY
REFERENCE CGIT 2/114 OF 2000 BETWEEN
EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO
MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL BANK. OF COMMERCE
AND
THE WORKMEN
Terms of Settlements
(1) By settlement arrived between the Oriental Bank of Commerce and All India Oriental Bank Employees Federation on 9-10-2001 have agreed to settle the Industrial Dispute pending at judication before this Hon'ble Tribunal as per the terms and conditions contained herein below.
(b) The first party Bank has agreed to reinstaie Shri Shankar Devdare the concerned work- man in the instant reference. The reinstate- ment of Shri Devdare shall be without hack wages. The reinstatement of the concerned workman Shri Shanker Devdare in Ihe ser- vices of the Bank shall be on the post anJ7756 THE OAftiTTH OF INDIA : DECEMBER. ?.9. 2001/?AUSA t 19:3 I PART TT—Sir. 3(H)] basic pay same as on the dale of his dismissal, The concerned workman Shri Shanker Dev- dare shall not be entitled and no benefit of seniority or any other service benefit for the interrupted period of his service.
(b) The Second party and the concerned work- men has unconditionally agreed and accepted the terms of settlements as more specifically contained in paragraph (a) above and ack- nowledges that reinstatement of Shri Shunkei Devdare in th*,: services of the Bank is without back wages, on the same post and basic pay as on the da e of his dismissal and no benefit of seniority or any other service benefit for the interrupted period of services will be claimed by the concerned workmen and/or the Second Party.
(c) The concerned workman shall withdraw all the matters', which are filed by him or filed on his behalf by the Union against the Bank in respect of reinstatement of services oF the bank, which may be pending in any Court or Tribunal.
(d) The Union as well as the concerned work- men withdraws all the allegations against the Bank unconditionally.
(2) The parties hereto pray that the reference be disposed of and award be passed in terms of clauses 1. (a), (b) (c) & (d) hereinabove as amicably settled out of the Court with no order as to cost,
Mumbai d;>tcd this l
O.B.C.l.U. (Muh.) & Concerned Employees
Ad vocal e for the First Party (V.H. Kanthara) P.B. Ware, Asst. Secy. O.B.C.U. (Mali.) I Know that Workman and identified by me Sd/- Illegible
Advocate
New Delhi,ihe 29th November, 2001 S.O, 3498.—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/I.alrour Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Indusirial Dispute between the employers in rcalatimi to the management of Canara Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2001
[No. L-12011/231 /2000-IR(B-U)] C. GANGADKARAM, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESIDING OFFICER : RUDRESH KUMAR
ADJUDICATION
I.D. No. 12/2001
Ref. No. L-12011/231/2001 IR/(B-II)
Dated 12/16-1-2001
BETWEEN The State Vice President U.P. Bank Workers Organisation Central Office 38/4, 13 Friends Centre San jay Place, Agra, (U.P.) (espousing cause of Tula Ram) AND
General Manager Canara Bank, Service Office Rohit Dhavan, Floor No. 4 Shapru Marg Lucknow (U.P,)
AWARD
By order No. L-12011/231 /200(VIR(B-[I) dated 12/16-1-2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2-A) of I.D. Act, 1947(14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the State Vice President, U.P. Bank Workers Organisation, Agra and General Manager, Canara Bank, Lucknow for adjudication.
The referenecc is produced as under :
"Whether the Action of the Deputy General Manager Canara Bank, Lucknow in non-recor- ding of educational Qualification M.A. (Hindi) in the service of records of Shri Tula Ram. Armed Guard is legal and justified? If not, what re'ief the workman Shri Tula Ram is entitled to?
2. The workman, Tula Ram, Armed Guard (No, 44051) posted at Naraieh Branch of the Canara Bank, Agra has raised this industrial dispute seeking incorporation ol his M.A. (Hindi) Degree awarded by 7757 Dr. H.R. Anibedkar Univcrsi y, in his service re- cords. He joined service on 22-11-I9R3 and al that time his educational qualification was High Sdhool. He passed his M.A. Part 1 in 1995-96 and later com- pleted final degree from the said university in Hindi literature. In compliance of the guideline? followed in the bank, he deposited his M.A. degree and mark sheet with the bank with request to note his higher educational qualifications in the service record. The management hy its letter dt. 29-9-97 declined to note M.A. degree, hence this industrial dispute.
5. In fact, the management has not challenged higher qualifications of the workman by way of passing 'Madhyama and UtUm a' examinations from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and there- after M.A. degree from Dr, B.R. Ambedkar Univer- sity but its contention is that the Madhyama and Uttama examination are not equivalent to degree and are simply proficeney certificates in Hindi ai-d so obtaining M.A. degree from Dr, B.R. Ambedkr.r University on the basis of Madhyama and 'Uttama1 degree can not be taken into consideration by the bank and so be noted in service records. Tt seems that the apprehension of the bank in noting M.A. degree in service record of the workman would entitle him to various perquisites and benefits admissible to employees similarly qualified, hence the reluctance.
6. The parties relied on oral and doci:n>.n- tary jvidence. The workman filo'.J his affidavit in shape of oral evidence and was crosN-rxammed by the management. Likewise, Mr. S. K. Savena, Manager at circle office, Canara Bank. Lucknow office was examined by the bank to justify its action of not noting M. A. derive; in ivrvicc records of the workman.
77W lTIE G A Z i r n ' I; UP 1NDTA : DH^LMFIIZR ."?'". 20O1 ,'FAUSA o. 1923 [P.uu Jl—SLC. 3(ii 1to degree, permitting I ho workman 1o appear in M.A. examination, k is prerogative of Lhe the university to consider as which degree from which uiiivarsity or institutions to be treated graduate degree, to entitle' one to appear \n Master d gree. Jn any evw'nt, the management has mot disputed that M.A. degree was not obtained by the work- man. It is also- not "M",]w.tocl that M.A. degree is higher qualification. The management has no authority to challenge a degree toy way of refusing to note such degree in service record of the workman. Mr, S. K. Saxena appearing for the1 bank admitted that Madhyama and Uttama certificates arc higher to the High School, exami- nation. He admitted that the bank is not competent to take decision about equivalence of any degree but such right is vested in the university or the oducational institution. In the present case, the university has not questioned its- dcgMc and likewise, the management has noi questioned bonafides of M.A. degree. The very exercise of the management to enquire into such fads whe her the university should have given permission to appear in M.A. (Hindi) on the basis of 'Madhyama and Uttama' qualifications was improper. In substance, the action of the bank in refusing to note M.A. degiee in, service record of the wo:kman is not sustainable in law.
9. The submission of the management that noting of the degree in service record, may result into claim of higher service benefits by the work- man. This submission is totally misconceived. An employee is entitled to claim whatever legally admissible to him, but such future claim can not entk'e the management to decline noting of higher qualification in service record,
10. Action of the management was not justi- fied. The workman is entitled to relief claimed. Award as above, is, in favour of the workman.
Lucknow RUDRESH KUMAR Priding Officer 23-11-2001
New Delhi, the 29th November, 2001 S. O. 3499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to lhe management of Vijaya Bank a d thoir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2001.
[No. L-I2012/73/98-IR (B-TT)j C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy
ANNFXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN'
TH MATN, III CROSS, Tl PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YfiSHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 7th November 2001
PRESENT
HON'BLESHRl V. N. KULKARNF, B. Com. LLB PRESIDING OFFICER
CG1T-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
C. R. NO. 2/99
T PARTY II PARTY
(Advocate-P. Sawkar) The Secretary, The General Manager, Vijaya Bank Employees Vijaya Bank, Federation, Head Office, VBEF, 18-22, Byalappa M. G. Road, Building, Cubbonpet Main Bangalore-560001 Road, Ban galore- 560602 (Advocatc-G. Hegde)
AWARD
- The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 o-f the Indt'.sfial Dispu'es Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vidt- order No ↩
1,-12012/73'98 TR (B-ll) dated the 30lh December, 1998 for adjudication (in the following schedule :
SCHLDLJLE
'"Whether the action, of Lhe management of Vijayu. Bank in. terminating Lhc seivices of Shri N. Narayan Kumar is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled '.'"
2. First parly was working with the Second Party. He was terminating and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.
3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respactively.
4 The case of the first party in brief is as follows : -
5. The union of Vijaya Bank Employees Federation has uiised this dispute, First party is a member of Schedule Caste. He was appointed as a workman to discharge the dv.iiesof Peon w.e.f. 1-9-1995. Hu was terminated w.e.f. 10-4-1997 and this amounts to retrenchment and he was terminated without complying the mandatory provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. He was worked continuously fur more than 240 days. The union for these reasons and for some other, reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows :
7. There is no relationship of master and servant bjiWecn. the management and the workman. He was engaged only on daily wages within the meaning of clause 20.7 of lhe Bipartite Settlement and he has no right at all.
8. About the union of the bank details arc given in para 2 of the Counter.
9. The main contention of the management is Lhat he was a temporary workman and he has not worked for move than 240 days at apy time and he does not become a pe.rmniu.-nt Govt, servant as per rules. Decisions of Supreme Court are also relied in the Counter. Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.
7759 11. Mr. Jayanada Shetty, Manager has stated Lhat first paity was taken as temporary Peon and he was engaged as per clause 20.7 of the Bipartite Settlement. He was not recommended by Employment Exchange and he has not worked conti- nuously for more than 240 days in any year. There is no reason to discard this evidence of MW1 because he is not cross examined and first party has not participated in the proceedings.
12. Keeping in mind the principles held in the decisions referred by the management in the counter I am „of the opinion that there is no merit in this dispute and 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 7th November, 2001) V, N, KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 29th November, 2001 S.O. 3500.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of ihe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank oflndiu and.theirwork- man, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2001.
[No. L-12O12/184/93-IR(B-II)3
10. Tl is seen from the records that the first party is not interested in this dispute and he remained absent. Therefore one witness was examined on. behalf of the munagc- inent.
3854 GI/2001—10
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
77(,() THE GA7LTTE OJ: INDIA . DECF.MBEP V), 2001 ,'PAUSA 3, 1023 | P M ;I I J - S j ; r. 3(ii)|ANNEXURF
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"
III Main, 111 Cross. II Pha-c, Tumkur Road Yeshwanthpur. Bangalore.
Dated 7th November, 2001
PRESENT
Hon'ble Shri V.N. Kulkarni. B.Com. LLB.
Presiding Officer
CGIT-Cum-LaboLir Court, Bangalore
OR. No. 19/94
1 Party
II Party
Sri N.S. Siimhrani, The Regional Manager, C/o Sri Anand Hepdc, Bank of India (Reg. Ollice) Canara Bank, Jyothi Mahal, Divisional Office. 49, St, Mark's Road. IMA Building, Bangalore-I B.N. Nagar, Hubli-29. (Advocatc-P. Sawkar) Karnataka f Advocate N.G. Phadkc)
AWARD
I, The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Seclion 10 of he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-I2OI2'184/93 IR (B-II) dated 16th February, 1904 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India. Bangalore in dismissing Shri N.S. Siimhrani. Sub-Stall" from Service with effect from 17-6-1992 is justified? If not, wlii'i. relief, is the workman •entitled to?"
2. First party was working with the Second Party. He committed misconduct. Charge Sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. On the basis of enquiry report he was dismissed from service and therefore, this Industrial Dispute is ra^rd.
3. Parlies appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.
4. In order to dispose oil" this dispute, few facts, are necessary and they are as under:
5. It is the case of the first party that he joined the services of the Second Party on 17-2-1977 as a Subordinate Stall". He was performing all the jobs of clerical as well as manual at the instructions of the Superior Officials of the Bank. On 25-10-1990 there was a curfew declared in the Town of Hubli after a few minutes of the openings of ike Bank.
6. It is the further case ot the first party that one customer by name Sri Siddappa Ramappa Garwad gave Rs. 1000/- to the first party to remit the same to his SB Account No. 8743, As in practice first party entered the same in the pass book and was about to remit the same to the Cashier but there was huge Galata and the Bank was closed because of curfew.
7. It is the further case of the first party that Siddappa Ramappa Garwad was not available so he returned the amount to his brother Sri Garwad because he could not deposit the money under the circum- stances explained by him. On that day even there vvas no time to mark the attendance by the employees of the bank. On 17-12-1990 when the said Sidappa Ramappa Garwad withdrew Rs. 100/- from his account and the first party made debit entry of Rs. 100/- in the pass book showing the cumulative balance as Rs. 8353.65 and the said Shri Garwad having come to know that an excess amount of Rs. 1000/- has been shown in the pass book, he sought proper entries to be made as per the ledger as an amount of Rs. 1000/- could not be credited to the bank because of curfew on 25-10-1990. Shri Garwad made a representation to this effect. How- ever for some ulterior reasons, the Manager of the Second Party obtained a Sharah and managed to issue charge sheet to the first party and the enquiry vvas initiated. The action of the management is no' correct. The finding of the enquiry of the officer is not correct. First party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
8. In the Domestic Enquiry Siddappa Ramappa Garwad was not examined. The enquiry is not correct. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
9. The case of the Second Party in brief is as follows;
10. The main contention of the management is that the enquiry is correct and all the allegations made by the first partyare not correct. Tnfact the first party unauthorisedly received a sum of Rs. 1000,'- from one Siddappa Ramappa Garwad and he misappropriated the said amount, All the charges are stated in detail in the counter.
11. Regarding enquiry it is said that the enquiry is correct and the finding of the enquiry officer is proper.
I 12. It is the further case of the management that in the past also some minor punishments were impose on the first party. The subordinate staff is not re- quired to perform the job of Clerical nature.
13. Tt is the further case of the management that the Hubli branch would not function due to imposi- tion of curlew in the city on a particular day. The incident of 25-10-90 is stated in para 8 of the counter.
14. It is the further case of the management Ihot supplementary charge sheet was issued against the first party. Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.
15. It is seen from the order sheet dated 7th January 1999 that the learned counsel appearing for the first party filed memo cor.cecding the validity of Domestic Enquiry and accordingly this tribunal posted the case for arguments on merit.
16. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 1 have carefully perused the entire enquiry proceedings.
17. In the instant case, the first party is conceded the fairness of the enquiry. It was argued by the learn- ed counsel appearing for the first party that infact the first party has not misappropriated any amount and the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer is not sufficient to prove the charge of misappropriation. It was also argued that on account of curfew on the relevant date the amount was not deposited.
18. I have carefully perused the enquiry proceedings and the evidence. In my opinion the charge of ITUV appropriation is not proved properly and the fact thai the bank was closed on the relevant date due to curfew at Hubli shows that the explanation given by the first party seems to be natural.
7761 (10) 200!(l)LLJ I33O(SC)
(11) 2000(11) LLJ 1367 (K;ir)
( 1 2) 1 0 9 9 ( 1 1) L LJ 1 55
21. I have read th? above decisions very carefully.
22. The management in order to take the benefit of some decisions relied by it, has to prove that the finding is based on the evidence before the enquiry officer. As explained by the first party there was no complaint against him bul llie manager has managed to take shara and initiated enquiry. The finding of the enquiry officer must be based on clear and cogent evidence but the finding is not proper. The punish- ment of dismissal seems to be more harsh. In the decision reported in 2000(11) LLJP.1599 the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that the appropriate order should at least for reinstatement without back wages and further increment were stopped and Appeal was allowed. It was a case of misappropriation by an employee of the bank.
23. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decisions) and the material Qoin the enquiry proceedings 1 am of the opinion that ends of justice will meet if the older of dismissal is set inside and the first party is reinstated without any backwages. Accordingly ) proceed to pus-; the following Order
ORDkiR
19. The learned counsel appearing for the first party has relied the following decisions. :
M) 1984(2)SLR 359
(2) l 9 8 4 L a b l C N O C6
(3) I99I(62)FLR 49 & 52 Para 15
(4) 1994 II LLJ 312
(5) 1991(62)FLR 104 & 109 & 110
(6) 1984 (2) SCC 569
(7) 1982(3) SCC 346
(K) 1988(73)FJR 515 and J988 (73) FJR 474 (9) 1985 (2) SCC 136
(10) 1982(1) SCC 117
(11) AIR 1978 SC85I
20. Against this lhc learned counsel appearing for the Second Party has relied the following decisions:
(1) I995(1)LU Kar(DB)=l995(l)LLJ 233(SB) (2) AIR 1998 SC 2311 = 1998 Lab IC 2514 (3) 1996 Lab IC 1056 (SC)
(4) JT 1998(9) AX37
(5) JT 1989 ( 2) SC 132
(6) 1987 Lab IC 77
(7) AIR 1997 SC2661
(S) AIR 2000 SC 302S
(9) 20l)()ni)LI.J ].195(SC)
The reference is partly allowed. The management is directed to reinstate the first party with coniinuity of service from the date of dismissal. In the given circums'ances no backwages are awarded and 'he first party will not he entitled to any increment for a substantial period with all cumulative consequences of such an order for a period of 5 years and the period of 5 years shall be counted from the date of publi- cation of this order.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 7th November 2001) V.N. KULK.ARNL Presiding Officer7762 THE GAZETTE OF TNDlA : DECEMBFR 29, 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923 [PART T l - S r c. 3iii)1 New Delhi, The 29lh November, 2001 S.O. 3501.—In Pursuance of Section 17 or the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 o(~ 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribuual/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Go- vernment on 28-11-2001.
[No. L-12012/359/96-1 R((Mi)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
Before Sri R P Pandcy Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Sarvodaya Nagar Kanpur.
Industrial Dispute No. 175 of 1997 Cyan Prakash Sagar, S/o Ram Purti Lal Sagar,
• Village Nagaria Sadat,
Post Meerganj, District Bareilly
And
Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 88-Beivil Lines Bareilly
Awaid
1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification no, L-12012/359/96- TR(B-1!) dated 29-8-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in not reemploying Sri Gyan Prakash Sagar alias Om Prakash is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The case of the concerned workman Gyan Prakash Sagar alias Om Prakash is that he was engaged as a peon on August, 88 and he worked for 288 days up to July 89. It is further alleged that in this period Sundays and holidays are to be included and by in- cluding these holidays his total number of working days comes to 304 days. It has been further alleged by the concerned workman that his services were illegally dispensed with by the management and after that several fresh hands were engaged but he was not given opportunity of re-employment. It is also alleged by the concerned workman that provisios of section 25H of the Industrial disputes Act has Km breached ir his i r.'-f. Besides he has also relied upon circular dated 21-3-91 under which if a person had completed 240 days in a year he will be entitled for employment subject to availability of vacancy. On the basis of above alterations the workman has aliened thai as there was a vacancy hence he is en- titled to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
3. The management bank has filed its written statement and has denied the facts alleged by the workman in his statement of claim. It has been alleged by the management that the concerned work- man was never engaged as a peon. It has been further alleged by ihe bank that the concerned work- man was used to be engaged of and on for bringing water and that too on casual basis, He never per- formed the duties of a peon in the bank.
4. The workman has filed rejoinder but nothing new has been allged.
5. Both the parties have filed documents.
6. I have gone through the record and find that in the present case this tribunal rendered its award on 24-11-98. The authorised representative for the concerned workman filed an application on 6-2-99 for setting aside the order dt. 18-11-98 and to permit the workman to adduce evidence in support of his case on which objections were invited from the ma- nagement by issuing notice to them. This tribunal after hearing arguments of both the parties vide order dated 29-9-2000 se, a-.ide the order dated 18-11- 98 and gave oppo/tunity to the workman to adduce evidence in the case and for this purpose several dates were given to the workman but the concerned workman did not avail the opportunity of giving evidence. Kvcn neither he nor his representaiive put in appearance in the case and ultimately the case was reserved for award.
7. Thus from the conduct and behaviour of the concerned workman it is clear that he is not interested in contesting the case Hence the tribunal is left with no other option hut to hold that the concerned workman is not enli led for any relief for want of evidence to prove his case,
8. In view of above it is held that the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief in pursuance of the reference made to this tribunal and the reference is decided against the workman.
9. Reference is answered accordingly.
R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 7765
AWARd
Thit lcference wa:, made by tho Centra! Govern- ment as per Order No, L-1201 I/2R5'2000/FR (B-II) dated 30-3-2001. The d'spu c rc;Vnvd is l"i. v ecu llie Central Rank ol India aw! >U w c k n u .i Knit. M. Bhavani. Tin. dispute referred is "v he tin r the action of the management of Central Bank el India in not considering the request of Smt. M Bhav;>ni, C'erk for promotion and postinc to a place of her choice was justified? T not. ^vh;;t r< lit i the con- cerned workman it entitled to'.'"' Tn the reference the workman is reprcsen cd b> liv "resident. Centra] Bank ol India Stall Uivnn (Kerala). F;:iamaia Shop- ping Centre, Koclii.
New Delhi, he 3rJ December, 2001
S.O. 350T.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Cenlia! Government hereby publishes the Award of the Labour Court, ERNAKULAM as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispuc between the employers in relation to the Central Bank oFJndUn and their work- men, received by the Central Government on 03-12-2001.
2. On receipt of uolice issued irom this court the management ;:ppeai..-d through counsel. The union refused to accept the notice issued i'iom this cour. thneby this court it satisfied that theiL was sufficient service ol notice. Though the case was posted tor appcKiiiee ol the Union it did not appear. So I am satisfied that the union is mil interested in pioseeuting Hie dcleience (luicby it can be found that there is no pending dispute to be adjudiea.ed by this court.
In the result, an award is passed finding that ther e No.L-12011/2X5/2000-1 R(B-I IV]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
is no pending industrial dispute between the parties io adjudicated by this eouiL
ANNF.XURF
Ernakulam, N. THULASI BAI, Presiding Officer 26-9-2001.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR
COURT, ERNAKULAM
(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM)
(Wednesday, the 26th day of September, 200] )
Present :
Smt. N. Thulasi Bai, B.A.LL.B..
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 2001 (Central)
Between
The Central Bank of India, Regional Oil'iee, GEO
Towers, Paljimukku, Kochi-!6.
New Delhi, the03rd December, 2001 And
The workman ol' the above concern represen ed by t!ie
President,
Centra] Bank of India Staff Union (Kerala) 41/1757. Paramara Shopping Centre, Kochi-682 OIK,
Representations :
!\O. 3M"il- In puiMianee of Section 17 ot the Industtia! Dispute Act I'M? (14 of 1947), the Centra! Gowjinment hereby publishes he award ol the Govcrnrnen1 Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1), Dhanbad as shown in the annexure in the indus- trial Dispute between the employeis in iclation to the management ol Ccntul liank t,l Ind'a and I heir workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 29-! 1-01.
..I ,,, Mjn.Hvnu-nt
7704 mfe GAZETTE of1 INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA S. 1923 IPART tl—Sec. 5(ii)jANNEXURE
BEFORE THb CENTRAL GOVLRNMENT TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANUAD.
I"'RESENT
Shri B. Riswas, Presiding OHiccr.
Ln the matter oi an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d) of the l.D. Act, 1947
REFERENCE NO. 95 OF 1995
PARTIES : Employes in relation to the management ul Central Bank ol India, Paina and their woi kman.
APPEAR ANChS :
On bo I uill ol (he workman : Shri Ciuindnka Pi a sad.
Advocate.
Or. be ha II ol the employers : Shri B. Joshi,
Advocate.
Stafe • Jhai khand Industry : Banking- Dated. Dhnnbad, the 29th Nov., 2001.
AWARD
High Court observed to the effect that when more than one forum are available to the petitioner to chal- lenge a particular order and he elects to choose one forum, thereafter ho is precluded from choosing other form lo." same cause of action. This is popu- larly known as 'Dorliine of Election' which is based on :he maxim "that a person cannot approbale or reprobate at the same time." This doctiine has been applied in India also.. Once the petitioner challenged the order or punishment by filing Writ petition and the said writ petition was dismissed the aflect of that is to conclude the ivntter inter-parties. The mater having thus concluded cannot be agitated again before other forum staling that the ground taken now is diilerent. As already pointed out, it was for the petitioner to choose one of the remidics avail.de before him. Once he opted for a particular remedy, he did so with all the limitations attached to the said remedy. It was his own volition without any impo- sation. Learned Advocate for the concerned work- man on the colrary submi'ted that during the pen- dency of the reiorcner ense the concerned workman prefeircd a Writ Petition. He further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court as did not dispose of the Writ Petition on merit there is no bar on the part o! this Tribunal to fake up hearing of the instant case. He submitted that the reference case is absolutely maintainable in the eye of law in view of the obser- vation made by the Hon'ble High Cour .
The Govt of India. Ministiy ol Labour, in cxer- ciso of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of MIL- l.D. Act, 1947 has referred the foj- Jowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide I heir Order No. L-12012/y4/95-I.R.(B-2)I dated, the 17-M995.
SCHEDULE
not be ignored. F, therefore, hold that the instant case is not maintainable in the eye. of law. An Award is passed accordingly.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Office i New Delhi, the 7th December, 2001 S.O.350J.—In pursuance ol Section 17 ol the Industrial Dispute Act, t<347 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Hyderabad as shown in the annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation fo the management ot Bank of Baroda and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 29-1 1-1001.
[No. L-I2O25/7;;20OMR(B-in] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present
Shri E. Ismail Presiding Officer
Dated 31st October, 2001
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO 9/2001 Between:
77'i5
AWARD
This is a refeiciHv nm^r SCCI'MII l()(I)(d) of 11",o I.D. Act, 1947. The rolerenix is, :
"Whether the action ol the management ol Bank of Baroda, Guntur to impose the punishment of withdrawal of special allowance and stoppage of one increment with cumulative efleet on Shri P. Ramaiah, Head Cashier. Bank ot Baroda, Guntur Branch is lega1 and justified'.' II noi, what relief is the applicant e l i d ed i r T' 2. The following c'a'm statement wa^ li'ed that Sri p. Ramaiah is work'ng win subordination, w.lll'ul slowing down, misbehaviour towards customers, negligence ol work and negligence in performing duties, breach ol rules and instructions for running cash departmuit collecting money from customers, failing to show proper courtesy and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank that enquiry was conducted which was vitiated on various grounds. ::iid the charges were not proved. It is alleged that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 26,000 and he made this up by a cheque of a customer for Rs 26,000. Actually it is not so, it was paid to the customer. That he has ptit in 22 years of service and he has been dischar- ging his duties diligently. He was unnecessarily held guilty and it is prayed that the orders passed by disciplinary/appe'late authority may bf quashed77; T1IC GAZHTTH 01 INDIA . W..< TMBL;,P y) 2001 PAUSA .X, 1023 |PAHI TT—Srr. 3(ii11 in the petitioner and hence spec'In: enqnirv officer named in the charge slu:cl itself. TliiTolnic llie same may he set aside,
5. The Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that witnesses were examined in the prsence (if the petitioner and the petilioner had a deience representative Me K. Ram Reddy. Witness have been cross-examined, the 'charged employee noi only examined himself hut "5 more witnesses, hence, the chatges are proved. And therelore, he i\ not entitled for any re'iel.
6. It may he ^een thai in the enquiry about the shortage nl cash iL was deposed in !he examination oi Mr. Raja Rao, MW3 that the shoirage was met hy debiting suspense iimnuni. However, he himself says that Sri Ramaiah is honest and sincere worker. And aboiii the shoitage oi' Rs. 26 000 it has been made up. "J herefore. some misbehaviour is proved. The derailment has already taken a lenient view and here was stoppage ot one increment with cumulative effect, I am 1-: The stoppage ot special allo- wance pan! to the Head Cashier Sri P. Ramaiah of the Hank of Baroda, Guntur Branch is restricted till June, 200.2 and the Bank shall pay Ramaiah the Head Cashier the special allowance from 1st July, 2002. However, the stoppage ol one increment with cumu- lative effect is hereby confirmed Relerence ordered accordingly, transmit
Dictated to Kum. K. I ham Gown, Personal Assistant transcribed by hei collected hy me on this 31st day of October 2001.
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witness exani'iii d for the Witness examined lor the Petitioner Respondent
Nfl. NU.
Document marked foi the Petitioner/Union
NFL
Document marked lor the Petitioner,/Union
Nil.
P r i d i ng Ollicej CGIT cii'n Labour Court. Hyderabad New Delhi; the 3id December, 2001 S O. 3505.—tn pursuance rif Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieby publishes the award of the Ceniral Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure iii 'he fnduvrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines Ltd. and their workman, wfcch was received by the Central Government on 29-11-2001.
[No. L-2OO3O/18/95 fR (C-l)
No. 1,-11012/1/97 IR (C-l)
No L-11012/2/97 IR(C-T)j
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR^LOURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 26th November, 2001 Present : K. KARTHTKEYAN,
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NOS. 412, 492,493/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Dispute Nos. 105/96, 61 & 62/98).
(In the. matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ol' the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between Sri M. V, Anantha Subramanian , D. Kumar Christopher and S. John and the Management of Indian Airlines Ltd. Chennai).
BETWEEN
1. Sri M.V. Anantha Sub;arnanian(I.D. No, 105/96) 2. Sri D. Kumar Christopher (I.D. No 61/98) 3. Sri S. John (I.D. No. 62/98) I Party/Workman
AND
1. The Regional Director (I.D. No. 105/96) 2. The Commercial Manager (I.D. No. 61/98) 3. The Managing Director (I.D. No. 62/98;
Indian Airlines Ltd. Chennai : II Party/Manage-
ment
Appearance:
For the Workmen 1 to 3 : M/s. Vijay Narayan &
R. Parthiban, Advocates For the Management : M/s, N.G.R. Prasad*
S. Vaidyaniithan, Advocates 7767 -
2. The I Party/Chlaimants in all these industrial disputes (hereinafter refer to as Petitioners) have stated their respective industrial disputes in their Claim Statements. Those averments in common are briefly as follows:
The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour in excrciso 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), hava re- ferred the above mentioned three Industrial Disputes for adjudication vide Order Nos. L-20030/18/95-IR (Coal-I) dated 28-11-1996, L-11012/1/97-IR(Coa]-I) dated 06-03-1998, and L-11012/2/97-IR (Coal-I) dated 06-03-1998. respectively.
These references have been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where the same were taken on file as I.D. Nos. 105/96, 61/98 and 62/98 respectively. When the matters were pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of these casa. from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudi- cation. On receipt of records from that Tribunal these cases 'have been taken on file as LD. Nos. 412/2001, 492/2031 and 493/2001 respectively and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of these cases to this Tribunal, with a direction to appoar before this Tribunal on 23-02-2001, 05-03-2001 and 05-03-2001 with their respective parties. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side present with their respective parties and pro- sscuted these cases futher.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 23-10-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statements, Counter Statements, the other material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on either side, upon hearing the arguments advance by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood ovet til] this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:
COMMON AWARD
The common industrial Dispute referred to in the above orders of references by the Central Govt, for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:
1. "Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd., Chennai, in termi- nating/dismissing the services of Sri M.V. Anantba Subramanian from service w.e.f. 20-8-92 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"
The Petitioners S/Sri M.V. Anantha Subramanian, D. Kumar Christopher and S, John employed in the II Party/Management, Indian Airlines Ltd. Chennai as Store Assistant, Loader and Canteen Supplier (General Duty worker) respectively. On 14-12-1886, they were arrested for the charges under the Customs Act. On 15-12-1886, the Customs Department filed a complaint before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, stating that these petitioners had attempted to smuggle three suitcases containing synthetic stones and they had confessed the crime of attempting to smuggle those three suitcases. They were produced before the Magistrate. The Peti- tioners had complained before him that thoy had not made any confession but was forced to make statements by using force, violence of third degree method. -The Magistrate personally inspected the bodies of the Petitioners and found marks which suggested that third degree methods of violence used and recorded the same. On 17-12-1886, tho Petitioners were placed under suspension in con- nection with that incident and thereafter on 20-2-87, charge memos were issued to them stating that duty they had committed misconduct under the Standing Orders 16(I)(4)and (6) of the Respondent Corporation namely failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with tho business or property of the Corporation and breach of Standing Orders. The Petitioners were asked to submit their explanation for which they asked for time. The Respondent did not give sufficient time for the purpose of submitting then explanation. In fact, a number of representations were made to the Enquiry Officer as well as to the Disciplinary Authority to the effect that the Petitoners should be permitted to avail the service of a Legal Practitioner, since the Presenting Officer was a person who was highly trained in law and therefore, the principles of natural justice would require that the delinquent employees should also have the service of a Legal Practitioner. Instead of the Disciplinary Authority deciding the issue, the Enquiry Officer himself has rejected their request.
2. "Whther the action of the Management of M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd., Chennai, in terminating the services of Sri D. Kumar Christopher, ex- loader w.e.f. 21-8-1992 is jx.stificd7 If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
3. The Petitioner Sri M.V. Anantha Subra- manian for the charge she.-;*, he nceived replied on 10-3-1987 requesting time till 11-4-1987. In the meantime, ht was detained under COFEPOSA on 31-3-87. On 22-4-87 hs informed the Respondent that he had been detained undtr COFEPOSA, and theje- fore, could not reply to the charge sheet. H; re- quested further proceedings may be kept in abeyance.
3. "Whether the action of the Management of M/s, Indian Airlines Ltd., Chennai, in terminating the services of Sri S. John , General Duty Worker in Staff Canteen w.e.f. 21-8-1992 is justified? If not, to what relief workman is entitled?"
3854 GI/2001—U7768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA &. 1923 (.PART I t - S u e. 3(ff)] Offct'r requesting permission to have a friend from outside or an advocate to asist him in the domestic enquiry in view of his inability to obtain a friend from within the organisation and algo in view of serious na- ture of ihe charges involved. On 13-3-92 the Petitioner was admitted in the Vijaya Hospital for second heart attack. On 14-3-92 notwithstanding ihe hospitalisation of the Petitioner, the enquiry commenced esparto. MWI Sri J. Mohanraj Inspector of Police (CBI) was examined by the Presiding Officer. In the circums- tances, the Petitioner's sister sent an express tele- gram to the Enquiry Officer informing him of the haspitalisation and requested for adjournment till 16-3-92. She also informed that the .Medical Offn.LT of the Respondent Corporation, Dr. Jaikumar was present on 13-3-92 during his brother's admi-lon and requested for adjournment for four weeks Dr. Badrinath, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Res- pondent Corporation sent a slip to the Vijaya Hos- pilal regularising the Petitioner's hospitalisatjon. On 18-3-92, the Petitioners' sister again wrote to the Disciplinary Authority informing him of the Petitioner's hospitalisation and requested the assistance of a friend or an advocate for her brother in the domestic enquiry and also made a request for adjourning of the prcceedinds. On 30-3-92, the enqiry was adjourned to 3-4-92. On 3-4-9?, the second Enquiry Officer eckrowedged the hpspitali- sation and mentioned that a.fresh date will be fixed for the eqnqi'.iry. The Petitioner submitted a letter requesting the assistance of an advocate in the pro- ceedings of the domestic enquiry- Rejecting his request for the assistance of an advocate, in the pro- ceedings of the donv-stic inquiry, :he enquiry was held on 10-4-92 and the Photostat copy of the Mahazar was presented and taken as Exhibit during the examination of MW2. On 11-4-92 al;o the Petitioner submitted a letter to the Manager, Stores and Pur- chase through the Enquiry Officer requesting for. an assisLarxe of an advocate. On 20-4-92, the Peti- tioner fi'.nher stated that he has uoi. yet received a reply to his letter dated 11-4-92 regarding his .request for an assistance- of an advocate and therefore, ho expressed his inability to cross examine MW3. On 21-4-92 since [he Pel ioner was sick, .he could not a:,end the enquiry s-ubmilicd a Ie/ller through a bearer. On 22-4-92, the Petitioner submitted an- other letter alorg with the discharge summary from Dr. Thomas Gc-orge.
Hohadilso^lod"a peiitibn in'ffigh Court of Madras challenging his detention and that detention petition ultimocly to tc h " rd by the High Court on I5-3-8f\ As the Petitioner was undtr detention, ho was unaoli to defend himself in the domestic enquiry. On 11-4-88, the Respondent issued a litter to the Petitioner asking him to file written state- ment to the charge sheet. On 29-4-88 and 20-7-88, he wrote to the Respondent calling upon them to furnitrrthe Standing Orders ar.d has infoimed them that th" charges levelled against him were identical to the one made in the Criminal Complaint and hence the domestic enquiry may be kept in aluyar.ee du'ing thw pendency of the criminal proceedings. The Respondent did not take further steps in the matter, and therefore, the Petitioner was under the. bonafid: impression that the Respondent had cccided to his rtquest of not to proceed with the domestic enquiry in view of the criminal proceedings. On 9*1-89, he requested permission to leave station from 10-1-89 to 31-1-89 in order to visit Bangalore and Bombay. The Petitioner receved a btier dated 17-1-89 alleging lhat he had failed to persor."Hy appear at the hearing held on 13-1-89. He also received a letter dated 17-1-89 asking him to attend ihe enquiry on 29-1-89. But both the letters were received after 31-]-89 since the Petitioner was in Bombay. He has nlso received a leHer dated 6-2-89 alleging that he had tailed to attend the hearing on 31-1-89. The appoint- ment of the Enquiry Officer r rd (he Preseniing Officer was also conveyed by this letter. On 22-2-89, the Petitioner made a representation that since the criminal case was pending the domestic enquiry should be kept in abeyance. He received a letter dated 23-2-89 from the first Enquiry Officer Sri K Gopala- kvishnan stating that the enquiry was fixed on 1-3-89, R om 1-3-89 to 8-6-90 ten sittings tooks place under the first Enquiry Officer with j,o prefer. M u n w r J k, Ihe Petitioner, had also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras to challenge the enquiry proceedir-gson ihe ground that Ihe criminal case was pending and on dismissal of the Writ petition and Writ Appeal No. 943/89, the Petiioner approached the Supreme Cciut of Irdia znd by order clawed 20-12-89, further procccdir.es were sUycd. FvirtuFlly. an oidcr wa^ prwed on 15-11-^90 holdings thai till the .statement of the petitioner wns recorded in the criminal case, the disciplinary proceedings should not be proceeded wiili. Q'i 15-7-91. the Ret pnn dent wrote a letter to ihe Petitioner stating that the first Enquiry Officer had rctiied ai.d in his place Sri 'Janardhaiiaiv. was appointed as Enquiiy Officer. How- ever,, the Presenting Officer was retained. On 3-2-92, the second Enquiry Officer issued a letter statin;; that ihe enquiry would be held on 14-3-92, On 9-3-92 ^r-c rciiljoner made a ieprcscntation tp the Enquiry
4. During the course of the enquiry, the Peti- lionei', Sri p. Kurnar Clnistopher submitted two medical certificates dated 30-3-92 and 3]-3-92. But inspite of the submission of these medical certificates, tho enquiry was not adjourned and even the enquiry report does not refer to the f.iet that Ihe Petitioner sought for an adjournment on the ground of iJiness end was refused.
7-769
7. The H Party/Managomsnt Indian Airlines Ltd. Southern Region, Chennai has filed separate Counter Statements in all the three cases. The aver- ments made in those Counter Statements in common are briefly as follows:
5. At the hearing of the enquiry on 11-5-92, the Petitioner Sri S. John alleged in his Claim Statement that his co-employee Sri A J. Elisha, who was stationed at Hyderabad sent a fax message that he could not attend the enquiry on 11-5-92 due to unforeseen circumstances and also requested postponement of the enquiry to 27-5-92. That request was rejected and the enquiry proceeded. The Petitioner did not understand English and was not in a position either to read or write English and therefore, he requested that all the proceedings should be conducted in Tamil. However, the proceeding were conducted in English and after the hearing the proceedings were translated to Tamil, but obviously ihis would not mee< ihe ends of justice, since during the course of the proceedings toe Petitioner was not able to effectively participate in the proceedings.
The II Party/Management (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) admits that all the three Petitioners were working under the Respondent/Management as they have pleaded in their respective Claim State- ments. It was also admitted that they were arrested under the Customs Act on 14-12-1986. They were involved in a case of substituting three-inbond suit- cases which arrived from Singapore an* was detected by the Customs and CBI. On examination it was found that the suitcases removed by these employees contained uncut synthetic stones worth over Rs, 20 lacs and the substitute-suitcases contained old news papers etc. They were kept under judicial costody under the Customs Act from 15-12-86 to 19-1-87. They were subsequently detained under COFEPOSA from 1-4-87 to 15 2 88. On 28 11 95, the Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous impri- sonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of such payment to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months by the Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The Petitioners were plaoed under suspension on 15-12-86 and subsequently charge sheeted vide letter dated 2-3-87 for commiting misconduct under the Standing Orders.They filed Writ Petitions before tho High Court of Madras for stay of disciplinary proceedings on the plea that cri- minal proceedings are pending against them. The Hon'ble High Court passed a common order dated 30-10-89 dismissing all the three Writ Petitions. The patitiDnsr Sri M.V\ Anitha Subramanian preferred a Writ Appeal No. 943 of 1939 bafore the Division B>nch, which was also dismissed on 18-11-1889. Then he obtainad stay from tha fton'ble Supreme Court on 15-11-90 in civil Appeal No. 5353 of 1930 as a result of w'uich the enquiry had to bo adjounsd. The stay was subsequently vacated on 28-2-92. Thereafter, a joint enquiry wa$ conducted and ths Petitioners wjre afforded full oppartunity to defend their casi Oci the basis of tho cvidanca adduced during the enquiry, tli3 Enquiry Offi^r cam; to the con- clusion that tha Petitioners were guily of the charges levelled against thsm, Agreeing with tha findings of the Enquiry Oifi:er, the co npatent authority awar- ded the punishment of dismissal from sei'vba with out bansfit in full w.e.f. 21-8-1992.
6. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report in which he held that the charges were proved against the Petitioners. The report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and is not born out of evidence on record There was no legally acceptable evidence to prove the charges framed against the Petitioners. The entire enquiry was held in gross violations of principles of natural justices and the Petitioners were deprived of reasonable opportunity to defend their respec- tive casos. The enquiry was farce and therefore, domestic enquiry is liable to be set aside. The non-payment of subsistence allowance has totally deprived the Petitioners of effectively contesting the proceedings and therefore, the Petitioners have been seriously handicapped and prejudice. This also vitiate the entire procedings taken against the Peti- tioners. The Management delibraiely fixed the per- sonal hearing for the Petilioncr Sri M. V. Anantha Subramanian knowing fully wsll that hs was not in the station on lhat day. The Petitioner Sri S. John was issued wilh stxond show cause notice, along with copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, whjch was translated in Tamil . Since the enquiry report was ir. English, the Petitioner was not in a position to make an effective repre- sentation: wh:n he was called upon to submit his re- presentation For the second show cause notice issued to the Petitioner Sri D. Kumar Christopher, he sought for time to submit his representation. But, without granting time, the Petitioner was ordered to be re- moved from service. The statutory appeals preferred by the Petitioners under the Standing Order 35 were also rejected.After the concilation proceedings were failed, these references have been made by the Minis- try fo adjudication of these industrial disputes by thjs Hon'blo Tribunal. For all these reasons, it is prayed that this Hon'blo Tribunal may be pleasd to sot aside the orders of removal of the Petitioners from service and direct the Respondent/Manage- ment to reinstate'-them in servlca with tacks wagea, continunlty of service and all attendants benefits.
8. The further averments made by the Res- pondent/Management in their Counter Statement filed in respect of the case of the Petitioner Sri M. V. Anantha Subramanian that the petitioner/workman had been ,adopting dilatory tactics to prolong the enquiry and the delay was entirely atrjbutable to7770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART U—SEC. 3 (if)] sel on either side for the joint enquiry of all these three cases. Documents have been filed by consent of the counsel on either side and marked as Ex.Wl to W3 and Ml to M28 as common exhibits for all these three cases.
10. The common points for my consideration
are—
1. "Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management against the Petitioners for the alleged misconduct in the charge memo dated 20-2-87 is not fair, proper and in violation of principles of na- tural justice?"
2. Whether the action of the Respondent/Ma- nagement against the Petitioners by dis- missing them from service is justified? If not to what relief they are entitled?
Points :—
him. Even after his release from COFEPOS A detention in the month of April, 1988, when he was asked to submit his written statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet, he requested for time and the same was granted uplo 19-6-88. For his request, for the copy of the standing orders he Was advised to contact the office for perusal of the same. On his further request for that copy of the standing orders, it was furnished to him under letter dated 28-6-88 and was advised to send his written statement of defence within twenty one days and finally on 20-7-88 he submitted his reply denying the charges and re- quested to k^ccp the ditciplinary proceedings in abey- ance, till the criminal case against him was disposed of. He had not attended the personal hearing on the date fixed, but he left the station without obtaining permission in writing. The enquiry was conducted fairly and properly after considering the Enquiry Officer's report and his findings, and the Petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the competent autho- rity dismissed him from service. Before the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay an application under section 33(2B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed and the Hon'ble Tribunal granted approval for the action taken against the petitioner/workman. The Presenting Officer was not a legally trained per- son. Hence, there is no justification for allowing the request of the petitioner/workman for having the assistance of a lawyer during the enquiry. As per rules, since the delay was attributable to the Petiiioner he was only entitled to 25% of the wages as subsis- tence allowance nevertheless, he Was paid 50% of the wages as subsistence allowance to him. In view of the gravity of the proved misconduct of the Peti- tioner, the punishment awarded to him is only pro- portionate and meets the ends of justice. There is no scope for interference under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Having regard to the nature of the charges framed and established, in any event, if this Tribunal holding that the enquiry is vitiated the Respondent may be given an opportu- nity to lead fresh evidence to establish the charges before this Tribunal. The Respondent having lost confi. donee in the Petitioners, and in any event, they should not be reinstated in service. Hence, an award may be passed dismissing the claim of the Petitioners. Similar averments have been made in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in the other two cases and further alleged that the Res- pondent Airlines cannot employ the petitioners who have been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to one year along with fine for an offence under COFEPOSA which amounts to criminal conviction involving moral turpitude and the Respondent having lost confidence in them they should not be reinstated in service.
9.. 'When all those three matters wore'taken up
It is alleged in the Claim Statements of all these three Petitioners that a joint domestic enquiry con- ducted by the Respondent/Management against all these three Petitioners is not fair and proper follow- ing the principles of natural justice and that these Petitioners were denied fair chance of put forth their defence effecfively. Ex.WI is the typed copy of the common charge sheet dated 20-2-1987 issued to all the three Petitioners. Ex. M9 is the. xerox copy of the Ex.WI. Ex.M4 is the xerox copy of the Mahazar dated 14-12-1986. On *hc basis of that Mahazar charge memos were issued to these Petitioners se- parately. In the charge sheet issued to all thesi Petitioners it is alleged that on the early hours of 14-12-86 all the three substituted three INBOND cargo in transit kept ready in trolley for being sent to Bangalore by Flight 1C-513 of 14-12-86 and there- after removed them out of airlines house premises^. They were caught red handed by the CBI and Cus- toms Officials when the three baggages were loaded in a taxi bearing registration No. TMC 3398 parked in front of INGATE of Airlines House with the intention of taking them out of LA. premises. Tho above three pieces from Singapore were received from Air India and AWB No- 09849242531 and was taken over on 13-12-86 for transhipment to Bangalore. The throe suitcases when opened were found to con- tain valuable uncut synthetic stones. The substi- tuted suitcases were also opened and found to con- tain old English magazines. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that the said act cf misconduct committed by them is established by constitute breach of Clause 1 and misconduct within the meaning of Clause 16(4) and 16(8) pf Standing Orders (Regula- tions concerning Discipline and Appeals) Applicable ta them.
' i t f n H t i J i y; a - j c . - rd • I U ' X L© r s .t b ut 4 i l tc bj t he c o u n- 7771
his request along with the Standing Orders and inspite of ample opportunities were given to him as per his letters dated 20-2-88, 15-4-88, 30-12-88 and 12-1-89, he has not chosen to reply the charge sheet and then only the Management had proceeded to conduct the enquiry. From all these things, it is seen that the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Management has not granted sufficient time to the Petitioner for submitting the reply to the charge sheet is incorrect and on that ground it cannot be said that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner.
11. It is the contention of the Petitioners that they have not given consent to conduct the joint enpuiry against all the three Pctitiorers as charge sheeted employees. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management that these petitioners have not objected to 1he joint trial a! the time of enquiry. Further no prejudice is caused to them by a joint trial conducted by the Management as domostic enquiry. As it is seen from the charge sheets issued lo the Petitioners that all the three Peti- tioners had joined together for the commission of the alleged misconduct, which have been described as misconduct within the meaning of clause 16(4) of the Standing Orders (Regulations concerning Discipline and Appeals). The misconduct under Clause 16(4) has been mentioned as theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business or prepcrty of the Corporation. Since it is alleged in the charge memo that all the three Petitioners were employees of Indian Airlines have jointly committed the miscon- duct, a joint enquiry has been conducted against these Petitioners by the Management. Fiom the perusal of the records available in this case, it is seen that at no point of time, any one of the Petitioners had raised any objection for such a joint enquiry, Nothing has been stated earlier before the Enquiry .Officer or even now as to how they were prejudiced by such joint enquiry. Under such circumstances, the contention of thelearned counsej for the Petitioners that a joint enquiry has been conducted without the consent of these Petitioners cannot be considered as an acceptable ground for the stand that the enquiry conducted is not fair and proper.
12. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that when the Petitioner asked time for filing reply to the charge, time was granted for the first time but it was refused when it was asked for the second time and the enquiry was straightaway conduded for the allegations against the Petitioners in the charge sheet. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings clearly shows that sufficient time was granted to the charge sheeted employees for.their reply to the charge sheet and the Petitioner M.V- Anantha Subramanian had submitted reply only on 20-7-1988 for the charge sheet dated 20-2-1987. The Petitioner Mr. D. Kumar Christopher asked for Tamil version of the charge sheet and his request was acceded by the Management and Tamil version for the charge sheet was supplied to him and insjjite of opportunities were given to him as per his letters dated 23-2-88, 11-4-88, 30-12-88 and 12-01-89 He had n.ot chosen to file his written statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet and then only the Management had proposed to conduct an en- quiry. Like that, the Petitioner S. John was also furnished Tamil version of the charge sheet as per
13. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that charge sheeted emp- loyees had requested for an assistance of a lawyer and the Petitioner Mr. John was only able to represent for all the hearings but was not able to get defence assistance till 10-5-92. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the High Court of Madras in a case reported as 1992—2 LLM 811 Indian Air- lines Corporation and Another Vs. M. Sundaram. In that case, the High Court was pleased to hold that "when the Management availing the services of a person legally qualified end well trained in conducting disciplinary proceedings as Presenting Officer, denial for an assistance of a legal practitioner to the emp- loyee inspite of his request is a violation of principles of natural justice." It is contended in the Counter Statement itself that as clarified by the Enquiry Officer the Presenting Officer was only a graduate in Com- merce and he did not possess a law degree nor he was legally trained. So the present case cannot be equat- ed with the cited case mentioned above. Under such circmustances it cannot be said that the enquiry conducted against these Petitioners was not proper. So, the decision in the cited charge sheeted employee is not applicable to this case. Further, a perusal of Ex. Ml enquiry proceedings and EX. M2 the en- quiry findings clearly show that inspite of ample op- portunities were given to the Petitioners to effectively defend themselves in the domestic enquiry, they only were adopting dilatory tactics in order to prolong the enquiry either by litigation or by seeking ad- jounrmsnts after attending the enquiry. Further, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer has permitted the Petitioners to avail the assistance of defence assist- ance of their choice, but the Petitioners only have not availed that opportunity ,given by the Enquiry Officer properly. Further, it is seen .that Petitioner M.V. ^Anantha- Subramanian had effectively cross examined the witnesses in the enquiry. So, it cannot be said that the Petitioners were very much prejudiced on this aspect. It is seen from Ex. M10, xerox copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India dated 28-2-92 in a petition preferred by the Peti- tioner Sri M.V. Anantha Subramanian that the Sup- reme Court was pleased to pass an order stating that7773 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : UEOfiMBER-39* 2QW/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART It*-Steo, 3 Management against the Petitioners was not fiar and proper and the Petitioners were not given, suffi- cient opportunity to defend them in the enquiry.
14. It is held in a case reported as 1993(2) Sup- reme Court Cases 115 CRESCENT DYES AND CHEMICALS Vs. RAM NAttESH TRIPATHI that "limitations imposed in the Standing Orders is not violative for right to hearing and fair trial and na- tural justice." In view of this Supreme Court de- cision, the Petitioner cannot contend that the Stand- ing Order provisions of the Respondent/Management in not permitting the Petitioner delinquent employee to have the assistance of a lawyer in the domestic enquiry conflicts with the principles of ntural justice. As per Standing Orders of Indian Airlines Corpora- tion published in the Gazette of India, Rule No. 32 reads as follows :—
"An employee may be permitted if he so desires to have under his own arrange nents the assistance of-a friend during the course of the enquiry. Such a friend must be an employee of the Corporation, no outside representation shall be permitted in any circumstances."
So the denial of permission by the Eriquiry Officer to the Petitioner for engaging an advocate to defend them in the enquiry in view of the Supreme Court decision cannot be considered as a violation of princi- ples of natural justice. It is also seen from the re- cords that all the three Petitioners were convicted by the Criminal Court for one year sentence of imprison- ment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000 each under COFEPOSA. That was initiated in pursuance of the misconduct committed by these persons as alleged in the charge sheet issued to them. Ex M4 inahazar has not been disputed by these petitioners, which clearly proves the act of misconduct committed by these three Petitioners jointly. Further, it it seen that inspitc of the conviction under COFEPOSA against these Petitioners, the Management has chosen to conduct an enquiry and in the enquiry the changes levelled against the Petitioners were proved for the Enquiry Officer to give a finding to that effect. From this it is seen .that there are sufficient materials .avail- able in this case to hold that, the enquiry conducted by the Management against the Petitioners was fair, proper, following the principles ofnaturaljusttce.
;Kumar Christopher and Sri S. John w.e.f. 20-g92 and 21-8-92 is justified. Hence, the concencd workman are not entitled to any relief.
16. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the action taken by the Respondent/Management/ Indian Airlines Ltd. against the Petitioners/Workmen by terminating them from service is justified and the concerned workman are not entitled to any relief prayed for. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day 21st November, 2001), K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :—
On either side : None
Documents marked :—
For the I Party/ Workmen :
Ex. No. Date Description
Wl 20-02-87 Xerox copy of the show cause notice.
W2 20-08-92 Xe>ox copy of the dismissal order.
W3 01 ^02-93 Xerox copy of the order passed by the Management in appeal by the Petitioners.
For the II Party/Management:—
Ex. No. Date Desciiplion
Ml 18-05-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceeding.
M2 13-06-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry findings.
M3 10-01-87 Xerox copy of the statement of Sri J. Mohanraj Inspector of Police.
M4 14-12-86 Xerox copy of the mabazar.
M5 02-12-S6 Xerox copy of the airway bill.
M6 Nil Xerox copy of the transhipment cargo Delivery challan.
M7 12-12-86 Xerox copy of the air cargo tranfer manifest.
MS 14-12-86 Xerox copy of the cargo manifest.
M9 20-02-87 Xerox copy of the chargeshcet.
M10 28-02-92 Xerox copy of the order of the Sup- reme Court.
M il 24rO6-92 Xerox copy of the latter from the Manager. Stores & Purchase slating that he concurs with the findings of Enquiry Officsr.
7m- •M12 20-08-92 Xerox copy of 1lc cider cf dismissal.
Ml3 20-08-92 Xerox copy of the application filed be- fore the National Tribunal by thu Respondent /Managemen t.
M14 01-02-93 Xerox copy of the order passed by Regional Director, Indian Airlines Ltd,-. Ml 5 01-09-94 Xerox copy of the letter from the Ministry of Labour enclosing the judgement copy of approval Appli- cation.
M16 20-02-87 Xerox copy of tho chargeshect.
Ml7 22-06-92 Xerox copy of the lotter from the Commercial Manager to the Petitioner.
Ml 8 23-07-92 Xerox copy of the lotter to the Peti- tioner, Enclosing the show cause notice and other Enclosures by the Res- pondent/Management.
M19 17-08-92 Xerox copy of the lotter from the Petitioner to the Respondent/Manage- ment.
M20 20-08-92 Xerox copy of the letter from the Commercial Manager to the Peti- tioner.
M21 20-08-92 Xerox copy of the application filed bJfore the National Industrial Tribu- nal by the Respondent/ Manager.
M22 01-02-93 Xerox copy of the order passed by the Regional Director L.dian Airlines Ltd. M23 20-02-87 Xerox copy of the charge sheet.
M24 19-06-92 Xerox copy of the lei tcr from the Management to thu Petitioner.
M25 21-08-92 Xerox copy of the letter from iliC Management to the Petitioner.
M26 21-08-92 Xerox copy of the application b fore the National Industrial Tiibur.al by ;h<: Management
M27 01-02-93 Xerox copy of the order pa^cd by < hv Regional Director Indian Airlines Lh\.
M28 Nil Xerox copy of Ihe unopcixd cowr Acknowledgement cards and rccdpis77^4 • THE GAZETTE OF INTttA: PPCEM3E& #,- 200 VfAUSA 8. 1923 [PART I l ^ ^ ^ i i )] New Delhi, Ihe 3rd December, 2001 SO.3506—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), ihc Central Government hi'ifby publishes the award of the Cent- ral Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Di^put- b.'t- ween the employers in relation to tho management of BCCL fend their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-11-2001.
[No. L-20012/317/90-IR(C-l) S.S. GUPTA, Under Secretary
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. 64 of 1991 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the manage- ment of Katras Choitudih Colliery of M/s. PCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : None On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi,
Advocate. State: Jharkhand Industry : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th Nov., 2001
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(0 (O of the T.D. Act., 1947 has referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/317/ 90-l.R. (Coal-I) dated, the 21st March, 1991.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Katras Choutidih Colliery in Katras Project Area of BCCL in not correcting birth date of Shri Ram Paresh Saw from 1938 to 031-1953 based on School leaving Certificate dated 20-4-89-is justi- is entitled?
2. The case of the concerned workman according to the W.S. in brief is as follows :
The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he was a permanent Timber Mazdoor at Katras Choitudih Colliery since 1971. He submitted that at the time of his employment the management, illegally and arbitrarily recorded his date of birth as Form 1938 in B Register. He further submitted that inspite of recor- ding that age in the Form B Register the management issued his I.D: card wherein his date of birth was re- corded as 1933. The concerned workman submitted that his date of birth was recorded wrongly in the Form B Register as well as in the I.D. Card he submitted his representation to the the management disclosing the fact that his date of birth was 3.1.1953 and accord- ingly he requested the management to rectify his date of birth but the management did not pay any heed to representation made by the concerned workman,. The concerned workman in support of his claim re- lied on tho School leaving certificate issued by his School. He further submitted that inspite of the school leaving certificate issued by the school in the matter of his date of birth the management did not consider nencessary to send him to the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age. Thereafter the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal,
3. The management on the contrary after filing WS.-cum-rejonidcr have denied all the cl?.ims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The management submitted that the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded in th~ Form B Rjgister as 1938. H; entered in to his era- ploymsnt on the basis of the pjrticulars supplied by him., The management further submitted that in the year 1986 the management supplied the service excerpt to the concerned workman and the concerned workman returned back the said servie excerpt duly signed by him accepting the Same. In the service excerpt the date of birth of the concerned workman was shown as 1938 but inspite of perusing the said date of birth the concerned workman at that time did not raise any obje- ction. The management submitted that relying on the school leaving certificate which was obtained by him after the service excerpt was given to him submitted that his date of birth was not 1938 but 3-1-53. They submitted that the said school leaving certificate was falsely produced by theconcerd workman with a view to take advantage from the management for his long service Accprdingly the management prayed for pass- ing an Award rejecting the prayer of the concerned workman.
7775 4. The poin.s for derision in his refeier.ee ate :—
"Whelhet .he aciion of .he munagemen* of Ka*ras Chov.,idih Colliery in Kairas Projoc Area of BCCL in not corr;ciinp binh ditie of Shi i Ram Paresh Saw from 1938 to 03-1-53 based on School Leaving Conificu e da i-d ?0-4-89 is jus.ified ? If no, o whti re'i?f -he said workman i-, en illed ?"
DECISION WITH REASONS
the concerned workman that he got his employmen in the year 1971. On the contnuy from the School Certificate it transpires that it was issued by the School authorities on 20-4-89, Therefore, it is clear that long after his service he has obtained this certificate in support of his claim which I consider cannot be entertained accoiding to clause (c) of the Implemen- tation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA. Onus abso- lutely lies on the concerned workman to establish that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Form B Register by the management. No evidence is forthcoming on the part of the concerned workman that inspite of giving correct particulars the manage- ment committed this mischief. Even when the service excerpt was handed over to the concerned workman he did riot raise any objection relating to his date of birth. Therefore, at, this belated stage I find it difficult to accept the contention of the con- cerned workman that his date of birth was 3-1-53 and not 1938, Accordingly, I hold that the concer- ned workman has failed to substantiate his claim with reasonable certainty. In the result, the following Award is rendered :
" T h: action of the management of Katras Choutidih Colliery in Katfas Project Area of BCCL in not correcting birth date of Shri Ram Pares-h Saw from 1938 to 03-1-1953 based on •School Leaving Certificate dt. 20-4-89 is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."
B.-BISWAS, Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001
S.O. 35O7-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby punlishes the award of the Central Government Industrial TribuiwH, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure- in the Industiinl Dispute between the employers in relation.10•the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-11-2001.
[No. L-2QO12/33S/93-IR 1 ;'s Exhibit M-1. From SI. No, 77 of the Form B iRegister ] find corroboration of the fi'ct relating to the submission made by MW-1. It is seen from the Form B Register that the date of birth ol"1he concer- ned workman was clearly recorded as 1938. MW-1 during evidence further disclosed Hint whenever the date of birth of any workman is recorded on yea:- wise. In that case the c.at. of birth is coumed on and from 1-7 of that year, MW-1 furthoi submitted that theconcejned workman has already been superan- nuated from his service and received all his dues. It is the contention of the concerned workman that his date of birth according; to School Leaving Certificate was 1-3-53. From the-School Leaving Certificate I find its corroboration. School leaving certificate was issued on 20-4-89, No explanation on the part of the concerned woikman is forthcoming why he did not consider necessary to submit the School Leaving Certificate along with the service excerpt which was handed over to him in the year 1986 by the manage- ment. Had that been so in that case the manage- ment would get the scope ot consider the date of birth of the concerned workman or there was scope to send I he concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age, Lt is the specific allegation of the management that the said certificate is a manufactured one and it was manufactured by the workman for his own interest. The management relied on the NCWA-1I1 Implementation No. 76, According to clause (b) of the Implementation Ins- truction No, 76 in the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Sttondaiy Certi- ficate issued by the iteogniied Universities or Board or Middk. Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Derailment of PuMie Instrucinn and admit cards i>sue<.< by ihe aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided thty were issued by (he said Univcrsitici/Board/lnslitLLiions prior to ihe date of employment, lt is seen from she pleadings of
S. S, GUPTA, Under Secy.
3854 GI/2001—12777fi THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 2'), ?.001.'FAUSA S. 1923 [PARF I I — S E C. 3fTT)J 14. Sanjay Kumar Singh.
ANNEXURE
15. Vikram Vishwakarma.
BEFORE THF. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAU
In the matter of a reference under Sec. 10(l)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Reference No. 11 of 1994
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen.
Present :
Shri S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Officer.
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri S. N. Sinha, Advocate
For the Workmen : Shri B. N. Singh, Addl. Gene- ral Secretary, "National Coal Workers Congress,
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, the 19th November, 2001
AWARD
By Order No. L-2OO12/335/93-I.R. (Coal-I) dated the 10/1!th February, 1994 the Centra! Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in ee'xercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the demand of the union from the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. P.O. Jhaiia. Distt. Dhanbad for regularisation of S/Shri Phulcshwar Singh and 14 others (as per list annexed) w.e.f. 1990 is justified '? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date ?"
1. Sri Phulcshwar Singh
2. Sri Vijoy Vishwakar
3. Sri Surssh Singh
4. Satrughan Vishwakar
5. Amar Nath Singh
6 Lakhan Prasad
7. Baikunth Saw
8. Fulchand Bhuiya
9. Rewati Singh
10. Vijoy Prasad
11. Bilok Singh
11 Mihir Singh
2. Precisely, the ease of the sponsoring union i-; that ail the eoncerned workmen were engaged by the management and were working mostly as Tyndals since the year 1889 till the middle of November, 1991 continuously in different collieries like Simlabahal Cotiiery, Burragarh Colliery and Hurriladih Colliery of Bhalgora area putting in more than 190 days attendance in each calendar yeai\ It is said that their works were supervised by the management's officials, like, mining sirdars, overmen, supervisors and others and they were issued materials, imple- ments ete. by the management of the above collieries to do their jobs. They were also issued cup lamps from the Cap Lamp Rooms of the above collieries for going underground and their attendances were marked by the Attendance Clerks of those eollierics. Further it is said that their works consisted of lowering down heavy materials in underground, lilting heavy materials from underground to surface, carrying heavy materials from one place to another and locudirg and unloading of heavy materials and so practically they used to perform jobs of Tyndals mostly and of and on they were utilised for doing cleaning job and for jobs connected with dyke cutting. All these works, as per the case, were of permanent and peren- nial nature, but inspite of that the eoncerned work- men were dubbed to have been engaged by one contrLtctor/intermediapy namedMuudhaU Singh tor the sole purpose of denying them regularisation. It has also been said that the concerned workmen weie paid their wages on much lower rate than the rates prescribed for them by N.C.W.A. and they were further denied ail other benefits and facilities which were extended to permanent wi rkmen for dcint; the job of Tyndals. It has been said that the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are not at all attracted in the case of the con- cerned workmen to treat them contractor's workmen. Besides being directly engaged by the management of Bhalgora Area, it is said, that the eoncerned work- men were dubbed to have been engaged by the eon- tractor to exploit them and such action on the part of the management was a camouflage only to cover up its lapses in violation of different laws connected with the matter. Further the case is that when die concerned workmen started demanding their rcguiari- sation from the management of Bhalgora Area on their permanent roll, they became eye-sore of the management which ultimately out of grudge, ill-will and dislike and also by way of victimisation threw all the concerned workmen out of employment some- time in the middle of November, 1991 pursuant to which they raised industrial dispute and when no positive development could take place before the Conciliation Authority ultimately the dispute was 13. Mahendra Kr. Singh "No, II, 7 7 77
B.C.C. Ltd. and the demand of the sponsoring union to regularise those persons in service of Bhalgora Area, consequently, is not justified.
referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. Lastly it has been said that all Hit; 15 concerned workmen figuring in the present reference are emitted tor their tegularisation on management's permanent roll from the year 1990 with all benefits, as per law.
4. In support of their respective stands the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in course of the proceeding. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the concerned workmen or the sponsoring union and likewise two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned from the side of the worm ken a carbon copy of letter dated 19-6-92 send to A.L.C(C), Dhanbad by the sponsoring union has been filed which has been mark- ed as Fxt.W-l in course of evidence of WW-3 where- as from the side of the managemeni out of the docu- ments filed Ext.M-l series are photo copies of slips of different dates, Ext.M-2 is carbon copy of worK order dated 31-8-90, Ext.M-2/1 is note-sheet dated 12-12-90 of M/s. BCCL and Ext.M-2/1 series aie Misc. statement of work with effect from 1-9-90 to 21-9-90 of the contractor.
5. Quite obviously from the respective stands taken on behalf of the parties the core issue seems to be involved is whether at all there was any relation- ship of employer and employee between the con cerned workmen and the management and also whether those workmen were doing permanent and perennial nature of job as Tyndals during the rele- vant period. The question of regularisation of the concerned workmen in service is quite apparently dependent upon the finding arrived at upon the afore- said material issue.
6. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of 3. The claim or the case ofjjtbc management, on the other hand, in short, is that the concerned workmen were never employed by the management but by the contractor on need basis for miscellaneous jobs and not for perennial nature of job. As such there was no employer-employee relationship between the concerned workmen and the management of Bhalgora Area. Further it is said that the nature of job entrusted to the concerned workmen were of civil underground jobs, such as , construction of ventilation stopping, construction pillar, trnasporta- lion of soliciied machinery as well as surface civil job. For the permanent and perennial nature of work, it is said, the management gets the work done not through the contractors or through the workers of the contractor but through its own employees. It is also said that miscellaneous works were per- formed by the contractor's workers against specific and particular job and work orders were assigned by the management to the contractors. Further the case is tha; the management is under obligation and has got undisputed right to supervise the work of the persons employed in the mine for safety reasons whether he is contractor's labour or workmen of the management under the provisions of Mines Act and Regulations and by Laws framed therein. It is the obligatory for the management to put attendance of such workers going underground in Form 'C and issue such workers safety equipments, such as, cap lamp from Cap Lamp Room of the management to do work underground. Further it it said that the concerned workmen were never utilised for prohibited or permanent nature of job which are being done through permanent workers like Tyndals and others and the names of the concerned workmen do not appear in[ any statutory register of the colliery of Bhalgora area, vi?., Form 'B" Ragister, Identity Card Register, Manpower Regisier and they are not the members of Coal Mines Provident. Their leave registers were not maintained by the colliery and further they are not supplied the Identity Card nor they are issued wage-slips as done in case of permanent workers and so this amply shows that there was no employer-employee relationship between the two sides. Since they were not engaged by the management rather by their contractor in temporary nature of jobs as and when required so the question of putting in qualifying attendance does not arise. In view of such circumstances lastly it is said that the concerned workman who were out and out con- tractor's workmen cannol be deemed to be the emp- loyees of the iniinagemonl of Bhalgora \rea of M/s.
thr sponsoring union that despite the fact that the concerned workmen right from the year 1989 till the middle of 1991 worked as Tyndals directly under the control and supervision of the management they were denied regularisation merely by dubbing them as contractor's workmen whereas it stands undenied that not only their attendance used to be marked rather all the implements etc. were being supplied to them for carrying out the jobs assigned by the management and besides this, they were also supplied the cap lamps by ihe management for their safety and also to facilitate smooth functioning underground or inside the mine. It has also been submitted that from the description made in certain exhibits filed on behalf of the management as regards the nature of work being taken from the concerned workmen also, it is evident that the concerned workmen for all practical purposes were discharging their duties as tyndals and were not simply carrying out the works of miscellaneous nature of the job or purely the civil nature of job as per the case of the management. It has also been contended tlnn the evidence adduced on behalf of the workmen is c6nsistant as far as the7778 JHE GAZETTE OF INDIA': DECF/MRER 2'9, 2001/FAUSA 8. 102? | pA Rl 1 t - S F t\ 3(vO] labour, rather it depends upon several factors and circumstances and as such the concept of automatic absorption in view of any notification under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act is crrenous.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid submission advanced as also taking into account the evidence adduced on behalf of the respective sides or the ma- terials pui. forward by them, it has got to be consi- dered as to how far the claim of the sponsoring union or the concerned workmen stands justified.
claim of the concerned workmen is concerned and it becomes quite apparent out of the entire materials that the management's action and their contention for dubbing the concerned workmen as contractor's workmen was simply a camouflage only to frustrate rightful claim of the concerned workmen and in view of several authoiities of Hon'ble Apex Court the relief to the workmen cannot be denied in such cir- cumstances and they arc entitled to be regularised with all consequential relief. It has also been stressed that in a case of almost identical nature the Industrial Tribunal has given the award in favour of the work- men by holding the work of Tyndal as of permanent and perennial nature.
8. In support of their claim the first witness (WW-I) on behalf of the workmen is one Hublal Prasad who has stated about himself that he is work- ing as Tyndal Jamadar at Simlabahal colliery. He has said that 15 concerned workmen worked in that colliery as tyndals for a period of three years which ended in the year 1991 and they used to be placed under his charge and it is he who used to deploy them to work. According to him, the concerned workman used to be provided cap lamps and were paid their wages at the rate of Rs. 22 per day. He has also said that the concerned workmen used to take heavy machineries to the underground from the surface and used to carry mo!or with different horse power also. In his cross-examination he has said that different collieries have their own Tyndal Jamadars who do their duty in their colliery. He has also said that the concerned workmen were working under Mandhata. contractor. He there- after says that he cannot say as to in which four collieries the concerned workmen had worked be- cause those collieries were adjacent ones and he used to be informed by the concerned workmen whenever he met them. Further, aeeoitiing to him, he can name only 2 to 4 of the concerned workmen and that they hed worked for total period of three years including other collieries as regards which he could know because the concerned workmen had told him so, though personally he has not seen as to how those workmen,were paid wages and how much He has also said that he concerned workmen have no identity cards and the were paid their wages by Mandhata Singh, Contractor.
From the aforesaid statement of this witness it is With equal vehemence it huf. been contended on behalf of the management that the sponsoring union has miserably failed to substantiate \'.a case for regularisation of the concerned workmen, rather its own witnesses have admitted the fact and have supported the case of the management that the con- cerned workmen were engaged by a contractor named Mandhata Singh and that they were doing miscel- laneous nature of job. T has also been contended that merely on account of the fact that the concerned workmen were supplied necessary implements and were also provided with cap lamps, they cannot be deemed to be the employees of the management. According to the submission since under the relevant provisions, Rules and Regulations it is obligatory on the parl of the management to take care of safety of workers whether engaged by the ton tractor or directly engaged by the management, it provides cap lamp etc. to all of them for their safety. Further the argu- ment advanced is that from the documents filed on behalf of the management and also from the evidence adduced on its behalf it becomes apparent that the concerned workmen never worked as Tyndals and they were never assigned the job of permanent and perennial nature and further it is evident from those materials that they all were engaged by the contractor named above and not by the management and as such their claim for regularisation has no basis at all and further their allegations as regards camou- flage to cover up the lapses has no leg to stand. In view of several authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well of different Hon'ble High Courts it is* sub- mitted that merely because the contractor or the employer had violated any provision of the Act or Rules, the Court cannot pass any order for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principle employer. In a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court also, according to sub- mission, it has been held that the engagement of contract labour in connection with the work entrusted to him by the principal employer does not culminate in emergence of master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the contract
apparent that though he is working as Tyndal Jamadar at Simlabahal colliery but claims to have deployed the concerned workman to work- as tyndals and also supervised their work for three years in that colliery. It is something which is contrary to the ease of the concerned workman because, according to them, they worked since 1989 to the middle of 1991 and during that period not only worked' in one collieiy, rather in three different collieries of Bhalgora area. In fact, in course af his cross-examination this witness- has also accepted this fact but says that nn he used tn be informed as regards their cngagcitten t by the concerned workman, though according to him, they used to be paid by the contractor,'' MAndhata Singh and cannot say as to how much were being paid as the same was never done before him. He lias also accepted this during his cross-examination that dill'ercnt collieries have their own Tyndal Jamai^ar,, This being so at the highest this witness being a Tyndal Jamadar of only one colliery can be held to be competent to say about the facts relating to that colliery only and that is why he clarified in Cross- examination that Ive was being informed by the con* ccrned workman whenever they mot him. So upon this aspect also that the concerned workmen worked for a total period of threo years, he cannot be held to be competent or reliable. Moreover, as regards this he himself says that the concerned workman had' told him so.
subsequent statement as regards working oi the concerned workman in other two colljeiies also are to bo taken into account and further if the statement of WW-1 to the effect that different collieries used to have their own Tyndal Jamadar is taken into (iunsidcratfon then the aforesaid statement n"
The ne.tt vvitness on behalf of the workman (WW-2) is Rup Lat Matrclal who says that he is Mining Sirdar in Simlabuhal colliery and the con- cerned workman are known to him who worked in tftai colliery from 1989 upto middle of the yenr 1991 as tyndals and whose work was supervised by the Jamadar Huhla! Prasad. According to him, the management provided working implements and safety articles to them arid their attendances were marked in Form 'C register. During his cross-examination he says that the concerned workman were the mazdoars of MiJndhata Singh, a contractor and further says that out of them he can name only one or two. He also s;iys that the concerned workman were not given identity cards. At one place he has also said that the concerned workman usually worked in Bhalgora Section of Simlabahal colliery but sometimes they also went to work at Hurladih and Burrahgarh collieries, Further according to him, it is a fact that the concerned workman were the workers of the contractor.
WW-3 Suresh Singh is one of the concerned workman. He has said that he and others had woriwid as Tyndals in Simlabahal colliery, Hurralidifa col- liery and Burragarh colliery for three years from the year 1989 to 1991. According to him, they worked ai. simlabahal colliery for 'wo and half years and (hey worked for about 3/4 months at Hurralidih anil then worked for fwo months at Bunagarh colliery.. In Form 'C register,, according to him, attendances- were • marked by the Attendance Clerk and cap lamps aridothcj articles from stores were supplied to them for going underground. He has also said that heavy articles were carried by them from the store to underground loading machine and inside the mine it was carried by them to the work site as per direction of the Engineer Incharge. According to him, ho used to work with the permanent tyndals of the colliery and was paid Rs. 22/- to Rs. 25/- as daily wages by one Mandbata Singh, contractor. ^He has identified the signature of Sri B.N. Singh, Union Secretary, on a letter which has been marked Ext. W-l. During his cross examination he has said that Mandhata Singh, con- tractor, took them for work in the colliery and no identity card w]as given to them for going inside the colliery. He has further said that his work was supervised by Mangha Pati, Engineer Incharge, who usted to allow him for going inside the collifery for working. Further according to him, he was not a member of provident f_und and none of the workman had their names in Form W Register of the colliery. Further he says that in case of their absence thty used to inform Mandhata Singh, contractor. Upon the question being asked he has expressed his inabilhy 10 give full name of the Manager ol Simla!; hal From the statement of this witness also it is apparent that like WW-1 he has made few state- ments ccMiiiaiy 'o he s u ^ r r e n is made >n the wriiien staicmon'., though like MW-I he does not say that the concerned workman worked for three years but according to him also irom 1989 upto the middle of 199J the con- cerned workman ' worked In Simlabahal colliery as t^ndals. His statement made during cxaminattcn- in-chief gives the clear impression as if for the afore- said period the concerned workman worked only in Simlabahal colliery. It is only duriug his cross- examination he has accepted that the concerned workman worked in two other collieries also but has not said that for how lang thoy worked over there. Initially he has said that their work was supervised by the Jjmadar, Hublal Prasad (WW-1) but if his7780 - me GA££TT£ OP INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001 /PAUSA S. 1923 rpART TI—SEC. KU) colliery and also the names of Foreman of tbo area where they used to work or the clerk who used lo give them cap lamps and other articles or ihc Attendance Clerk who used to take their hazri in Form *C\
From the above it is apparent that despito being .
a nd I h ey w e re ; I 1 SD n ot in • m k .s o l ' p r o v i d e nt f u n d.
were made by the contractor. He has said that he cannot say lhaL the workmen of the contractor worked for how much period in the colliery, but according to him they had not completed 190 days work in a year. According to him, they were not •members <>f provident fund. He has proved the work order dated 31 -8-90 to the contractor under the signature of the Agent. B. Singh, marked Ext. M-2, notesheet dated 12-12-90 under signature of K. Mangapati, Sr. Executive Engineer on differc-iU dates lo the. contractor, Mandhata Singh, marked Ext, M-2/2 (20 sin.els). In his cross-examination he has said that ho cannot say that Mandhata Singh had other workers beside?, ire concerned workmen or not. He has also said that he cannot syy whether Mandhaia Singh was a registered contractor or not and whe her he was licences or not. Fui'hci he has said that no register was maintained for the contrac- tors in the colliery. He has also said that he cannot say what specific job was given to the contractor for doing the work.
It is' true that he has not specifically stated so far as tho nature of job used to be done by ihe concerned workmen is concerned but he has proved certain relevant documents which clearly specify the natur of work being taken from the workers of the concerned contractor and besides this though he could not give tho exact period diting which the workmen of the contractor worked in the colliery, but emphatically he has said at one place, as seen above that they had not completed 190 days work in a year and that they were engaged by the contractor who uicd to pay them tho wages for the work being done by them, During the encire cross-examination like MW-I lit: has not said anything contradicting claim or the stand taken by the management or on the basis of which he can be held to be incompetent untrustworthy or un.realiable. 10. As far as the documents filed on behalf of the respective sides are concerned as mentioneJ earlier only one document has Ivcn exhibited on behalf of the workmen and that is simply a letter sent by the union to the A.L.C.(C) during the pendency of the dispute before him in which the facts or assertions put forward on behalf of the management have been controverted and denied and which bears the signa- ture of Sri B,N. Singh, Secretary of the concerned union, whereas from the side of the management out of the documents filed Ext. M-l series are photo copies of the slips of different dates which contain the name of the contractor, .Mandhata Sinjh imti the na- ITWS of 1 he woikim.-n engaged by him u> cany out the works assigned to them on d'lT.fent da'es. Inlcfis- tingly theses slips were filed on behalf of the workmen during the proceeding but ilm workmen did not choose to get them exhibited on their behalf, ia;her havin'j found ilr.m in its favour ih-e management
77R!
got them exhibited, Significantly, those slips are all for the period during the year 1991 and ir they all are taken together it becomes ci-.'ar tha the concerned workmen worked only for r<\ Jays and that too not in a regular manner. Despite the stand taken that the concerned workmen worked conti- nuously for a period of 190 days in a calendar year, no any document has been filed on behalf of tlhe workmen to show that they worked for any period whatsoever in the years 1989 and 1990 also. Although it stands not denied in the year 19S9 or 1990 the concerned workmen had worked in the colliery but denial was definitely to the effect that they had not worked for a period of more than 190 days in a calendar year. As such it was necessary to substantiate through documentary evidence as well that in fact those workmen had worked for the said period, rather more than that, No explanation has been put forward as to why the work slips for the yuirs 1989 and 1990 were, not produced particularly when they managed to produce the work slips of the year 1991. Merely the workmen cannot fix the responsibility as regards this upon Lhe management and carrnot u.ki1 shelter rnorsly by assorting that the management om"ht to have produced Form 'C Register which could have clarified the position. Further murly by non - production at all of such register it cannot be nceees- sarily inferred that the concerned workmen had worked for more than 190 days in a clalendar year. As discussed above, by leading oral evidence also the workmen have failed to substantiate tin; aforesaid stand. In short, it stands un-established that the concerned workmen worked for two and half years or three years or for more than 190 days in. a calendar year.
The other documents on behalf of the manage- ment are Exts. M-2, M-2/1, M-2/2 series. These documents are either the work orders or the note- sheets under signature of the Agent or by the Sr. Executive Engineer on different dates and those are for lhe different period in the y;ar 1990.
The aforesaid documents havo been filed and exhibited on behalf of the management in order to show that the concerned contractor was engaged or lhe concerned workmen were performing miscel- laneous nature of job on uejd basis for i\ specified period and they were not working as tyndals fi778 V I HE GAZETTE OF INDTA : DECEMBER 29, P.Orti, PAUSA !i. 1923 [P.\n I I - S ir 3(ii) materials, articles or equipments from one plate to
according to submission, since no legislation u'rii- fkate eithtr by princ'pal en-.plover or bj Ihc Fo-called contractor has been submitted, the conccnvd work- men dubbed to have been ejifloyid by Ihe SY-uillul contractor but pcrfninv'rg iv£Li'ar rature rf job of tyndals are to be legally trep.u-d as woikn^T of ilie management and not of contractor. another. Having gone thiough those documcni very carefully and minutely it appears lhat in all those documents it stands clearly mentioned that the con- cerned contractor was being asked to execute miscel- laneous nature of job through his workmen and in none of them it is mentioned that those works were of the similar nature as done by the tyndals employed on regular basis by the management raiher in net sheets it stands clearly mentcned lhat ihc contractual labourers were engaged due to shortage of manpower and emergency of the job for specified period and furthermore a fixed amount paid to the contractor for the work being done during the said period, is also mentioned. It is also apparent from those noie- sheets that services of the contractor or the workmen were availed only on need basis for a specified period for which specific amount was being paid to the contractor who thereafter paid the wages to the workmen which has been admitted also by the work- men. It is further quite obvious from the aforesaid documents that the contractor's workmen were en- gaged for different type of jobs and rightly the same has been described as miscellaneous nature of job. It is true that at times the contractor's workmen were required to load motor of diffaent horse powers on a trolly for the purpose of taking n from xmt place to another or to take some other articles' of different nattrre manually from one place to another. ' But at the same time it appears that th* concerned work- men did the work, such as, suction pipe extension, pipes currying, delivery leaking repairing and foot valve changing of H.T. pump Succinctly, it-can be observed by going through those documents that it cannot be necessarily gathered lhat ihe works being performed by the workmen were either of tyr.dals or of permanent and perennial nature, rather those docu- ments support the stand of the management that mis- cellaneous nature of works were* being taken from the
The aforesaid two decisions, I am afraid, do not support the aforesaid content ion raised on behalf of the workmen as it has not been held therein that merely on account of non-compl-ar.ee of Ihe afore- said statutory provisions it can recesjai ilv be deemed that the workmen were the employees of the manage- ment and not of contractor. In this regard rather the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Lab. I.C. 75 (SC)—(Dena Nath & others Vs. 'National Fertilisers Ltd.) appears 1o have direct bearing as in that case it has been clerrly held by taking into account.Sections 7, 12 and 24 of ihe Contract Labour (Regulation &, Abolition) Act, 1970 that on account of non-compliance with provisions of registration or licence the only consequence is the exposure of either the management or the contractor to prosecution under Section 23, 25 of the said Act and just because of such non-compliance the contract labour employed does not become direct employees of principal employer. Significantly, this judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been relied upon in a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court deli- vered in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (L&.S) 1121. The said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was also relied upon for the puipose of holding that neither the Act or the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any appropriate Govern- ment provides that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer. In nut-shell, the aforesaid con- tention advanced on behalf of the concerned workmen is devoid of substance.
. contractor's workmen en need basis foi a specific period for which a spicific amount was being paid to the said contractor who in turn paid the wages to the workmen engag;d by him with which the manage- ment never had any concern.
11.'By citing two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Cov.rt, one reported in 1997 Lab. 1,C. 365 (Air India Statutory Coiporation etc. Vs. United Labour Urion arid others) and anoUicr reported in AIR 1999 (SC) UfiO (-Secretary, Haryana State Elect rkry- Board Vs. Surest* and others) it has been vehemently urged on behalf of the workmen that U/S- 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 it i necessary for the management to apply for registra- tion and to get it registered thereunder and further J*Sec. 12 of the-^aid Act enjoins similar obligation on the contactor's registration. In the instant case,
12. By citing yet another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1978 Lab. LC. 1264 (Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezil- ali) it has been submitted that mere existence of any contract or contractor is not necessarily indicative of the fact that a workman for all practical purpose is the workman of the contractor and not of the employer, rather according to the submission, after piercing veil it is required to be discerned as to whether the contract system or the contractor is just a camouflage to frustrate the interest of the work- men or in fact the said contract is a genuine one and the workman is genuinely a workman of the contrac- tor. In the instant case, according to submission, it has $urBciently been, demonstrated by leading cogent evidence that the concerned workmen were perform- ing the job under the direct control and supervision of the management and it was the management which supplied necessary implements and safety articles etc. to them for the smooth functioning and for their safety as wei1 ^.nd as such the existence of contract or contractor can only be treated as a mere camou- flage to defeat the interest of the concerned workmen and consequently in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the concerned workmen can only be treated as the workmen of the management and as such are entitled for regularisation.
As far as the aforesaid legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned the same cannot be disputed, rather the same still holds good as in the aforesaid recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Steel Authority of India Ltd. also while setting aside its earlier decision rendered in Air India Statutory Corporation the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that Section 10 of C.L.R.A. Act does not postulate automatic absorption or regulari- sation of a workman has further went, on to hold that on issuance of prohibition notification under Sec. 10(1) of C.L.R.A. Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dis- pute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to condition of service the industrial adjudi- cator will have to consider the question whether the contract has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine cont- ractor or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade comp- liance with various beneficial legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that if the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage the so-called contract labourers will have to be treated as employee of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the estabishment concerned sub- ject to the condition as may be specified by it for that purpose.
In the instant reference, it is obvious from the discussions made above there is nothing on the basis of which it can be concluded that the contract was not genuine, rather a mere camouflage to deprive the concerned workmen of their rightful claims and benefits and so the workmen cannot take recourse of the aforesaid submission or the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the existing posi- tion borne out of materials on record. Lastly by taking help of an award rendered in Reference No. 51/78 by the Industrial Tribunal on 5-3-1981, it has been urged that having held the job of tyndals to be of permanent and perennial nature the Tribunal prder^d for regularisation of the concerned workmen.
3854 GI/2001—13
77§3 Having gone through the copy of the sard award it seems, that the decision in the said reference has been arrived at on its own merit and in that case it was not disputed that the concerned workman used to carry heavy materials and was working as Tyndal , and further in the facts of that case materials produced were not sufficient to show that the contract was a genuine contract, rather out of that the Tribunal found the same to be a camouflage. As such, the aforesaid award of the Tribunal does not help the concerned workmen in the instant reference in any way.
•13. Thus, in view of the observations, considera- tions and discussions made above it is concluded that there was no any relationship of employer and emp- loyee between the concerned workmen and the mana- gement and further the concerned workmen being the workmen engaged by the contractor were not doing permanent and perennial nature of job as Tyndals during the relevant period and in view of such being the position they are not entitled for regularisation.
14. Having come to the aforesaid findings the award is finally rendered as hereunder :
The demand of the union from the manage- ment of Bhalgora Area of M/s. B-C.C, L,td,, P.O. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad for regularisation of the concerned workemen, namely, Phuleshwar Singh and 14 others with effect from 1990 is not justified and they are not entitled for any relief whatso- ever.
In the circumstances of the case there would be, however, no order as to costs.
S. H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001 S.O. 3508.—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, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the7784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (H)] employers in relation to the The Partner, M/s. Prakash Ore Carriers, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-11-2001.
[ No. L-26011/15/99-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.T.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 70/2001 Date of concluding of the hearing : 29th October, 2001 Date of passing Award : 9th November, 2001 BETWEEN : The Management of the Partner, M/s. Prakash Ore Carriers, P.O. Chaibasa, Singhbhum-833 201. 1st Party—Management AND •
Their Workmen, represented through the General Secretary, Barbil Workers Union, P.O. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar. 2nd Party Union APPEARANCES :
None . .For the 1st Party Management None .. For the 2nd Party Union.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adiudication vide their Order No. L-26011/15/99/IR (M), dated 24-01-2000 :
"Who* her the demand of Barbil Workers Union, Barbil, for payment of wages to the Drivers and Helpers to High Grade Fines Section at par with Lump Section on the principle of equal wag^s for equal work by the management of M/s. Prakash Ore Carriers, Contractor, Bolani Ores Mines, RMD, SAIL, is j u s t ed ? If FO, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"
2. The disj r.tc has been raised at the instance of the 2nd Party-Union. So the onus lies on them to fstablish their case by producing either oral or documentary evidence. After they produces materials, the Ist Pany-Management could challenge the same either by producing oral or documentary evidence.
But in this case tho 2nd Party-Union has not filed their Claim Statement in support of theii case. The 2nd Party-Union has not come to the witness box to give their oral evidence or to exhibit documents in support of their demand thai the action taken by the 1st Party-Management is illegal and unjusti- fied.
3. In the circumstances above, when no materials have been produced on bt'half of the 2nd Party- Union it can be concluded that th<5 2nd Party- Union has got no grievance against the action taken by the 1st Party-Management ard they have got no cause of action. In other words the action of the 1st Party-Management is justified ard the 2nd workmen arc not entitled for any relief.
4. Reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated and corrected by mr.
S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001 S.O. 3509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heroby publishes 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 Fixit Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Dalmia Comcnts (Bharatha) Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.
[No. L-290H/12/2001-IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Undei Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 24th October, 2001 Present : K. KARTHIK.EYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 583/2001 [In the matter of tho dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and pub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispu+cs Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Union Porambalur and the Manage- ment of Fixit Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat)Ltd.]
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, T.N. National Mine Workers Union, Perambalur. _I Party/Claimant AND
1. The General Manager,
Fixil Pvt. Ltd.,
2. M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd.,
Dalmiapuram. II Party/Management Appearance :
For the Workman M/s. Row & Reddy,
Advocates.
For the Management 1. M/s. T. S. Gopalan &
Co., Advocates.
2. Sri K. Jayaraman,
Advocate.
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-se^ (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication vido Order No. L-29011/12/2001/IR(M) dated 14-05-2001 :
"Whether the demand of the Union for pay- ment of customary bonus and cash gift from Fixit Private Ltd., sub-leasee is legal and justified ? And whether the demand of the Union foi pay- ment of customary bonus and cash gift by M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. on failure of sub- lcaseo holder M/s. Fixit Pvt. Ltd. is legal and justified ?"
When the matter came \p before this Tribunal for final hearing on 11-10-2001, the learned counsel for I Party represented that the matter is being settled with the II Paity Management and hence time may be granted for Reporting settlcmjnt. As per his request, this case has teen adjourned to this day for reporting settlement,
' ' 2, 'When this cas: is taken up today, the General Secretary of the I Party Union; Representative of the II Party (1) Management and counsel for II Party 1 'and 2 present, represent that the dispute -has been settled, between the parties and thoy.filo- a joint memo to that extent, and the same may be recorded and pray that the Tribunal may bo pluased to pass an Award*ihteims of the; Sccv 12(3) settlement en- tered between'the parties.
-7785 3. The joint memo filed by both the parties is perused. In that memo it is stated that (he I Party Union is not pressing the claim made in this dispute against the II Party (2) M/s. Dalmia Cement fBharat) Ltd. since they have settled the dispute with the I Party Management Fixit Pvt. Ltd. and have enterad into a Sec. 12(3) settlement with them. The xerox copy of the said settlement is filed. Joint memo filed by the parties is recorded.
4. In view of the joint memo recorded and in view of the Sec. 12(3) settlement entered into between the parties to the dispute ar. Award is passed in terms of the said settlement dated 11-09-2001 undei the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As no claim is made in respect of this industrial dispute ty the I Party Union against the II Paity M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. as per the memo filed today, the claim made by the I Party union against the II Party (2) M/s. Dalmia Cumants (Bharat) Ltd. is dismissed as not pressed. The copy of the above Settlement dated 11-09-2001 shall form part of this award. No cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on ihis day the 24th October, 2001).
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Enol :—Memorandum of Settlement dated 11-09-2001.
Witnesses Examined :
On either side None
Documents Marked :
On cither side Nil.
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001 S.O. 3510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), thp;Central Gbvernmerjt*1 hereby .publishes the Award of ; the Central Gpvernment Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown rn the Annexure, in the industrial dispute' Ufa THE GAZETTE OF DtfttA : ttfiCfflyftEft. 59, •56&l/ftWJSA 8. 1923 fPArtf Jt-^Sffc. 3(1*)] between the employers in relation to the The Asso- ciated Cement Cos. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.
[Nc-L-2901 l/22/1997-IR(M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 24th October, 2001 Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 06/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 38/2000)
(In the matter of the dispute For adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sob-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between Ihe Workman and the Manage- ment of Associated Cement Co. Ltd., Coimbatore.)
BETWEEN
1. Coimbatore Cement : I Party/Claimant Workers Union (A1TUC)
2. The General Secretary,
Anna Cement Thozhilalar Sangam.
3. The General Secretary,
Kovai Mavatta Podhu Tho/.hilaiar Munnetra Sanga.
AND
The Managing Director, : II Party/Manage- Associated Cement Co. Ltd. ment
Coimbatore.
Appearance :
For the Claimant : M/s. K.V. Shanmuga-
nathan, Smt. V. Vyjayanthi- mala Advocates For the Management : Sri N.C. Ramachandran
& Sri K. Chakrapani, Advocates
The Govt, of India, Ministry ol Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-seetibn1 (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-29011/22/97-IR(Mlsc.) dated 04-0^1999.
This reference has been made earlier to Iht Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 38/2000. 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 Tri- bunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 06/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on re- cord on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 18-01-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.
When tile matter came up before me for final hearing on 28-09-2001. I Party claimant for all the three Unions ' representatives and their counsel on record were not present. There is no representation on their side. They remained absent from March, 2001. The counsel for the II Party/Management alone was present. The learned counsel for the II Party/Management represented that the Counter Staicment of the I Farty/Mangemcnt may be treated as his arguments.
Upon perusing the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Coimbatore Cement Workers Union, which is adopted by I Party Anna Cement Thozhilalar Sartgam and Kovai Mavattai Podhu Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam and the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management, the other material papers on record, and upon perusing the douments filed by the II Party/Managenient as annexure to the Counter Statement and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt, for adjudi- cation-by this Tribunal is as follows :
"Whether '" the action of the Management of Associated Cement Cos. Ltd., Coimbatore in proposing unilateral decision to fix units limit for usage of free Electricity for the employees staying in the quarters provided by' Management is justified or not? If not justified, to wha" relief the employees are entitled?"
2. The averlrients in the Clairii Statement filed by the,I Party/Claimant No. 1 which 1s adopted by the Claimant Nos. 2 ajid' 3. are briefly as follows :
All the staff and workers of the IT Party/Manage- ment company (hereinafter.refers to as,Respondent) and also it various unions have been enjoying the tiki free electricity in ttieir quarters provided by the ma- nagement right from the construction of the quarters for the staff and workers and subsequent to arbitra- tion Award passed under section 10A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 published in the Gazette of India dated 20-7-83 it has been specifically stated that the established practice with respect to free supply of electricity provided by the management in the quarters occupied by tne staff and workers should not be disturbed. Hence, this restriction of free supply of electricity has hot been taken away in the subsequent settlements till date. All of a sudden, before negotiat- ing with the Trade Unions, representing all the staff and workers, the Respondent published a notice dated 8-1-1997 informing the staff and workers that the Management decided to restrict the supply of free electricity in ihe quarters provided by the Ma- nagement as free quota per month 220 units for senior staff quarters, 150 units for junior staff quarters and 100 units for two room tenements and 60 units for single room tenements. The Management has no right in taw to restrict the free supply of electricity to the quarters which benefit has been enjoying by the staff and workers for the past several decades. As soon as the said notice was published, the I Party/ claimant (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) sent or letter dated 9-1-97 to the Respondent objecting 1o restriction of free supply of electricity and subse- quently all the unions by their letter dated 16-1-97 objected the Respondent's unilateral decision fcr restricting the free supply of electricity as merjtiored in the notice dated 8-1-97. All the staff and workers occupying quarters are hot misusing the free supply of cleciricityin their quarters- The restliction imposed by the Respondent/Management will cu,°sc financially much hardship under the present high cost of living in Coimbatore area. It will be too difficult to manage their deficit in monthly family budget. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'bl9 Court may be ptessed to pass an award directing the Respondent not to restrict the free supply of lelectricity in Ihe quarters provided to the staft and workers as stated in their notice dafed 8-1-97.
3.' The averments in the Counter Statement of the II Party/Martag'ement are briefly as follows :
the Respondent have not withdrawn any facility and the employees continued to enjoy supply of free electricity for lighting purposes and therefore, the claim made by the Petitioner are misleading and far from truth. As per the provisions of Award of Board of Arbitration for Cement Industry, the Arbitrators clearly stated that fixing tho ceiling on consumption of electricity is not ore of the isjues referred to them for arbitration. Therefore, the question of fixing ceiling on consumption of eJcctri- city was not an issue dealt in the arbitration proceed- ings and hence reference made in the Claim State ment in respect of para 159 of Arbitration Award has no relevance in the present case. The employees vouched in the Respondent company's colony have been misusing the electricity by using heaters, ovens^ electrical gadgets etc. unauthorisedly. Therefore the Respondent company lias decided all ACC basis that some reasonable consumption of electricity for writ- ing purposes only should be fixed with a view to avoid misuse of electricity. Accordingly, free quota has been fixed to various types of housing quarters in the colony of the Respondent The Respondent has been advising the employees from time to time not to misuse electricity and conserve tho same. They have also advised the employees to totally refrain from using heaters etc. In this connection, tho Respondent displayed a notice dated 24-1-94 on all notice boards of the Respondent company including the mines wherein the Respondent has clearly stated that employees who seek permission to use a number of electrical gadgets like wed grin- dcis, mixies, T.V. etc. wiil be permitted to use the electric power for all these purposes, subject to their paying for electricity consumed by them for such pourposes at the appropriate tariff rates, as applicable to the domestic use fixed by various Electricity Boards in the concerned States. It is also sated in the notice that after installation of electrical energy metiers in all the quarters, tho company will be fixing the ne- cessary free quota in respect of each quarter for which employees wil] not b' required to pay any charge and they will bo charged for the units con- sumed ovor and above the free quota at the tariff rates applicable to domestic use. The Respondent also increased the rate of consumption of electrical energy for using rcfrigarator from Rs. 7.50 per month which was fixed way back to Rs. 40.00 per month from January, 1994 and tho employes who wsre using Coolers were also charged an amount of Rs. 25 per month w.e.f. 1-1-1991. Th) praciice cf revising/fixing new rates for electricity consumption for different electrical appliances is an established practice prevailing at the Respondent company and the Respondent has not deviated from any of the established practices as alleged by the Petitioner m tbiif CJaJm Statement. The increase m?.de in The; employees pf- the Respondent company who have been provided with company's quarters were given free electricity f^r, -the lighting purpose only :as per the terms and conditions s.ipulated.in the .provisions of appointment letter issued to the emp- loyees at thp tim
"e,cinc n^mion hasibeen rnaUe in-tho appointment.letter itself that the .emplejtee will bo provided witK-thc fi'ue electrical energy for lighting"purpose only on free of charge for th.s .time being. All the employees accepted the appointment on the above terms. In view of" this,7™ r HE QAZfetTEp^PggA_; P&CEMBfiR 29, 2001/FAUSA ft. 1923 [PART I I - S E C. 3(ii)l the charge for consumption of electricity for refri- gerator and fixed new rate for usage of Cooler was accepted by the employees including the Petitioner. All the employees were availing the above facilities and the Respondent company have been paying the charges as fixed above since, 1994 and there is no dispute at all raised by any of the Petitioners since then. All the unions functioning in the Respondent company were called and briefed about the step taken by the Management. The free quota of electricity fixed vide its notice dated 8-1-97 is very liberal and the units fixed are more than sufficient to meet the requirements of the emp- loyee residing in the Respondent company's quarters for the purpose of lighting. The Respondent comp- any has not withdrawn any of the customary con- cession and from the beginning the Respondent company has been provided free electricity only for the purposes of lighting. It is the prerogative of the management to enforce restriction on the quota of electricity to be consumed for the purpose of preventing misuse/excess uses of electricity and con- trol due to the fact that before enforcing restriction the management have complied with the requirement of giving notice of their intention way back in 1994 itself. The avilability of electricity itself is increas- ingly becoming difficult for several States. Even the electricity is made available with great difficulty the cost of electricity per unit has been consistently increased. The consumption of electricity for do- mestic use is no longer restricted in consuming power for lighting purpose only and once an electricity connection is given to a house, it can be used for purposes other than lighting as well. No welfare measure can be extended to an unreasonable limit opposing the very principle of grantirlg concession. If any disturbance is caused to the fixed quota it will lead to unnecessary cost escalation resulting in even increase in the price of the product of the company which the Govt and the public policy now tried to avoid. The fixed quota of electricity of lighting purpose only is reasonable and hence, the steps taken by the Respondent/Management will be upheld as proper and the claim made in this dispute by the Petitioner may be dismissed. 4. The point or my consideration is :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Associated Cement Cos. Ltd., Coimbatore in proposing unilateral decision to fix units limit for usage of free Electricity for the employees staying in the quarters provided by the Manage- ment is ustified or not? If not justified, to what relief the employees are entitled?"
Point :
condition has been stipulated that the Respondent company providing company quarters of tbe emp- loyee will be giving free electricity for lighting purpose only. The xerox copy of one such appointment letter issued by the Respondent/Management to an employee dated 19-2-1974 filed as an Annexure I to the Counter Statement contains one such condition in respect of providing electrical energy for lighting purpose only free of charge for the time being. The averments in the Counter Statement that the emp- loyees of ihe Respondent company occupying the quarters provided to them by the company have been misusing electricity by using heaters, ovens and other electrical gadgets like refrigerators, wed grin- ders, mixies, coolers and TVs .urtauthorisedly. It is further contended in the Counter Statement that the employees who seek permission to use such electri cal gadgets were permitted to use them for all these. purposes, subject to their paying for electricity con- sumed by them for such purposes at the appropriate tariff rates as applicable to domestic use fixed by the various Electricity Boards in the concerned States. A xerox copy of the notice dated 24-1-94 of the Res- pondent/Management in respect of electrical energy consumption in the quarters has been filed as An- nexure III to the Counter Statement. In that it is stated that apart from free electric power for writ- ing purpose, the rate has been fixed for the use of refrigerator as Rs. 40 per month and Coolers as Rs. 25 per month w.e.f. 1-1-1994. The xerox copy of the disputed notice dated 8-1-97 has been filed as Annexure IV to the Counter Statement. From the notice Annexure III to the Counter Statement, it is seen even as early as from the year 1994 the Management had fixed the rate for using the refri- gerators and coolers as the amount required to be paid by the employee who uses these gagdets from I-I-94 per month. Under the Annexure IV notices dated 8-1-97 the Management has clearly stated that the provision of free electricity to all employees residing in the company's accommodation for lighting arid fans is being widely misused and therefore, the Management had decided to fix free quota which has been arrived at on all ACC basis for electricdl energy in respect of all the quarters of the company in resi- dential colony as mentioned in the table therein. In that notice itself, it is stated that ^he units consumed beyond the entitled^ free quota will be charged at the tariff rates as applicable to domestic use fixed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from time" to time. From this, i t is evident that the Respondent/ 1 Management has not withdrawn the facility of pro- viding free electricity for the employees staying in the quarters provided by th; Management. But under the giyeA circumstances only, they have taken a decision to fix units limit for usage of free etectrjeity for the employees, staying in the quarters provided It in not disputed that in tic appointment letter issued to the employees at the time of joining, a 7789
electrical consumption as per the units of consump- tion. However, so long as the meters are not provided the Management and the Union representaiives will jointly fix the number of units to be charged for the use of above gadgets by the employees. From this it is seen that the restriction made by the Respon- dent/Management by fixing free quota of electrical energy in respect of all the company's residential quarters for lighting and using fans as per the notice dated 8-1-97 cannot be considered as unjustified. Only after giving sufficient notice, as per Annexure IV to Counter Statement of the Respondent, the Respondent/Management had fixed the units limits for the usage of free electricity for the employees staying in the quarters provided by the Management. Hence, it cannot be considered as an illegal or un- reasonable action taken by the Management in this regard. From the facts available in this case, it is seen that the fixed quota of electricity for lighting purposes only is reasonable and the steps taken by the Management is proper and it can be upheld. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
5. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the claim of the Petitioner Unions cannot be granted as their claim is unreasonable. No direction can be given to the Respondent as prayed for by the Peti- tioner Unions. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th October, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined : On either side : None DOCUMENTS MARKED : On either side : Nil
New Dclhj, the 5th December, 2001 by the Management. As stated in the counter of the Respondent/Management that it is the preroga- tive of the management to enforce restriction on the quota of electricity to be consumed for the purpose of preventing misuse/excess use of electricity and the Management before enforcing this restriction had complied with the requirement of giving notice of their intention way back in 1994 itself as it is seen from the xerox copy of the notice dated 24-01-94 filed as Annexure III to the Counter Statement. It cannot be disputed that the availability of the electri- city itself is increasingly becoming difficult of and even when electricity is made available with great difficulty the cost of electricity per unit has been consistently increased. The Respondent/Manage- ment has clearly averred in the Counter Statement that the consumption of electricity for domestic use is no longer restricted to consuming of power for lighting purpose only and once the electricity connection is given to a house used for purposes other lhan lighting as well, the very principle of granting concession is become unreasonble. This has not been disputed by the Petitioner Unions as incorrect. Further, the Petitioner Unions have not been denied that the employees who are availaing the facility of free supply of electricity for lighting purpose began to misuse that facility by excess use of electricity by.the use of electrical gadgets like wed grinders, mixies, coolers, TV sets, refrigerators etc. That was why the Respondent/Management was compelled to fix necessary free quota of electric energy in respect of each type of quarters occupied by the employees of the Respondent/Management. It is clearly spelt out in the notice itself that the emp- loyees will not be required to pay any charge for the fixation of free quota of electrical energy and they will be charged for units consumed over and above the free quota at the tariff rates applicable to the domestic use. It it seen from the xerox copy of the annexurc VT minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the Management of Associated Cement Co. Ltd., and the workers representatives of Associated Cement Co. Ltd., National Staff Union and National Cement Workers Union, Madukkarai and an agreement was arrived at between the parties stating that there is immediate need to stop misuse of free supply of electricity in the company's quarters allotted to the employees. It has been clearly stated therein that the parties had agreed that the employees would continue to enjoy the benefit of free supply of electricity for the purpose of lighting and fan and the number of points for lights and fans and units for each quarter would be de ermined by the General Manager in consultation with recognised union's representatives. It is further stated therein that the employees using heaters for cooking and heating, refrigerators and other electrical gadgets will pay for
S.O. 351L—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra1 Government hereby publishses the Award of the77-S6 THE GAZETTE OF INDEl'VDE£EM84##/ 2&fyPJl}O$A 8. 1923 [PARf' U-*-Al& 3 Industrial •tribunal, Udaipur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s Mcwar Khanij Udyog and their workmen, deceived by the Centra! Government on 23-11-2001.
[No. L-29012/22/1999-Ift(M)]
B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.
7791.r
3854 GI/2001—H7792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAU5A 8. 1923 [PART H —S E C. 3(£)J New Delhi, tlic 5th December, 2001 S O. 3512.—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 Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubencshwar (Orissa) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the S.G.S. India Ltd. and tiiii' workman, received by ttw Central Government on 05-12-2001.
[No. L-29012/43/200 M-R(M)]
B.M, DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBA NESWAR
Present:
Shri S.K. Dhal, OSJS' (Sr, Branch)
Presiding Officer, GGXT.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 415/2001 Date of concluding of the hearing 9th Nov. 2001 Date of Passing Award 27th Nov. 2001 BETWEEN :
(a) The Management of the General Manager, S.G.S. India Ltd., Delta House, Calcutta-I. (b) The In-Charge, Hotel Baidyanath Complex, S.G.S. India Ltd., At/Po Joda, Dist. Kconjhar
. .. .1st Party-Management
AND
Their Workmen, represented through the General Secretary, Qr. No. G/107, BoJani, P.O. Bolani, Dist. Keonjhar.
. . .. 2nd Party-Union Appearances:
Representative of S.G.S. India Ltd., and Others 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-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29012/43/2001/IR(M), dated CV07-2OO1.
"Whether the demand of the Keotijhar Mining Workers Union for enhancement of pay scale with pofat to point fitment basis along with 100% DA and Rs. 350/- per point V.D.A. to the emp- loyees of S.G.S. India Ltd.. Joda is justified?
If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?" "Whether tho demand of the Keonjbar Mining Workers Union for payment of Rs. 50/- per month as washing allowance, enhancement of Conveyance allowance to Rs. 500/- per month, iettling allowance at the rate of R&.25O/- for three months after the transfer of an employee and house rent aJIow.ince at the rate of 25% of wages to all the employoes of S.G.S. India Ltd., Joda is justified? If, not what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
"Whether the action of the Management of S.G.S. India Ltd.t Joda by not confirming the employees after six months of their employment is justified? If not what relief the workmen are entitled to?" 7793 2. The reference was made on 5-7-2001. While makmg reference the Government of India (Ministry of Labour) had intimated the 2nd Party-Union to file their Claim Statement. From the date of receipt of the reference the Tribunal also directed by issuing notice to the 2nd Party-Union to file the Claim Statement but the 2nd Party-Union did not take any step. The representative of tho 1st Party-Manage- ment has made his appearance on 9-11-2001. The 2nd Party-Union has also been set exparte on 9-11-2001.
3. The disputo has been raised at the instance of the 2nd Party-Union. So the initial onus lies on the 2nd Party-Union to establish its case. Unless, the Claim Statement is filed, there is no scope for the 1st Party-Management to file their Written Statement. As the 2nd Party-Union has not taken any step and they have not filed their Claim Statement, it cannot be said that the demand of the 2nd Party-Union is justified. Unless materials are placed before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the action taken by the 1st Party-Management as referred to by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India is unjusti- fied. So, it can bo said that the action of Ihe 1st Party-Management of S.G.S. India Ltd.4 Joda, by not confirming the employees after six months of their employment is justified. In that case, the work- man are not entitled for any relief.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Directed & Corrected by me.
S. K. Dhal Providing Officer C.G.I.T.-cum-L-C, Bhubaneswar Now Delhi, the 5th December, 2001.
S.O. 3513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputo Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad as shown in the Anaaxure in the Industrial dispute bstweon tho amployari in relation to tho management Hindustan Copper Ltd. and their workman, w h i ch was received by the Central Government on 28-11-01.
[[No. L-29012/44/92-IR(M)J
B.M. DAVID, 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(l)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 137 OF 1993 PARTIES: Employers in relation to the manage- ment of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and their workman.
APPEARANCES;
On behalf of the workman Shri K. Chakravorty,
Advocate.
On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi,
Advocate,
State : Jharkhand Industry : Copper Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th November, 2001
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour; in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion vide their Order No. L-29012/44/92-IR(Misc.) dt 16-8-1993/1.9.
THE SCHEDULE
"Whether order No. rof. PM/S-21/M/90-91/3 dated 15-4-1991 issued by tho Management of Mosahoni Mine is justified? If not, what relief Sh. M.S. Safar is entitled to and since when." 2. The case of the concerned workman in brief is as follows;
The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that at the time of his getting employment on 16-4-54 under the management bis age in the Form B Register was recorded as 20 years. The management also communicated the said age recorded by them to him. He alleged that in spite of the aforesaid fact tho management recorded the date of birth of the concerned workman in the statutory register as 24 years with effoct from 16-4-54. Accordingly he submitted representation before tho management to this effect but the management without considering his prayer arranged inor his medical test by the Apex Medical Board. He submitted that the ago assessed by the Apex Medical Board was not in accordance7*794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART n—SEC. 3(il)] with the particulars of medical jurisprudance for which the same cannot be taken into consideration. He submitted that in spite of submitting repeated representation the management relying on the medi- cal board report superannuated him with effect from 30-11-9] in violation of the provision of the Standing Older and also in violation of the man- datory provision of medical jurisprudence. Accordingly finding no alternative way the con- cerned workman raised an industrial disptue before the ALC(C) Chaibasa challenging his superannuation with effect from 30-11-91 but the conciliation pro- ceeding ended in failure due to the adamant attitude of the management. As a result the present re- ference was made.
3. The management on ihe contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder has denied all claims and alle- gations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been submitted by the management ihe age of the concerned workman was recorded as 24 years in the Form B Register as on 16-4-54. Accordingly superannuation notice was given on 16-10-89 to the concerned workman informing him that his date of superannuation will be with effect from 30-4-90. However, as the notice of super- annuation was disputed by the union the concerned workman was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of his age in terms of Memorandum of Settlement dt 27-11-85. The management submitted that according to the report of the Medical Board the age of the concerned workman was assessed as 58 years as on 29-11-89. The decision accordingly was officially communicated to the concerned work- man on 30-11-89. The management submitted that according to the age assessed by the Medical Board his date of superannuation was 30-11-89.. Accor- dingly a notice was given to him on 15-5-91 informing him that his date of superannuation will take effect on and from 30-11-91. The management submitted that they did not commit any illegality in superannuating the concerned workman on the basis of medical report The management further sub- mitted that the Medical Board also did not commit any illegality in cssessing the age of the concerned workman violating the medical jurisprudence. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned work, man.
4. The points for decision in this reference are: "Whether order No. ref. : PM/S-21/M/90-91/3 dt. 15-4-1991 issued by the Management of Mosaboni Mine is justified? If not what reliV Sh. M.S. Satar is entitled to and since when."
DECISION WITH REASONS
workman examined himself as witness in support of his cJaim. In course of evidence of MW-2 the Form B Register was marked as Ext. M-2 and the Bipartite Settlement in between the union and the management was marked as Ext M-3> MW-2 during his evidence disclosed that according to the Form B Register the name of the concerned workman is appearing in SI. No. 2940. This witness further disclosed that according to this register the age of the concerned workman was recorded as 24 years as on 16-4-54. The concerned workman on the contrary submitted that his age was recorded as 20 years in the Form B Register as on 16-4-54. Disclosing this fact the workman submitted that the management wrongly recorded his age in the Form B Register ignoring his actual age originally recorded therein. It is seen that as the management issued notice of superannuation to the concerned workman the union of the concerned workman raised serious dispute and for which the management relying on the said settlement marked as Ext. M-3 sent the concerned workman to the Medical Board for his medical examination in order to assess his age. MW-2 who is Medical Superintendent, Rakha Copper Project Hospital during his evidence disclosed that the medical examination for assessment of age of the concerned workman was conducted by the medical Board consisting, of three medical officers, namely Dr, Miss A. Marandi\ Dr. S. Mandal and he himseJf. This witness disclosed that after medical examination they assessed that the age of the concerned workman was in between 58-59 years on the date of examination The Medical report during evidence of MW-1 was marked as Ext M-h The concerned workman sub- mitted that arbitrarily and ignoring the Medical jurisprudence the. Medical Board assessed his age arbitrarily and for which thc.sume cannot be accep- ted. On the contrary MW-1 denied the allegation which has been brought by the concerned workman. It has been submitted by MW-J that dssjfication test is not the exclusive test to assess the age of any person. He. submitted that they rightly examined the concerned workman and assessed his age cor- rectly and for which he denied the fact that violating the principles of medical jurisprudence they assessed the age of the concerned workman. Learned Advocate for the concrned workman in support of claim of the concerned workman relied on a deci- sion reported in LLJ II 67 page 266: I have consi- dered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and I find no dispute to hold that the case of the concerned workman has no bearing with the decision referred to above. Onus absolutely lies on the concerned workman, to show that his age was actually'recorded as 20 years as on-16-4-54 but subsequently the mana- gement whimsically ignoring that age recorded bis a 3. .1,110 management in order to substantiate their "claim examined three witnesses, while the concerned as 24 years. Until] and unless this fact is estab- lished there is no reason to consider that the manage- ment illegally as well as arbitrarily striking down bis age as 20 years recorded his age as 24 years in the Form B Register. HoweVer, as the union raised serious dispute over superannuation notice given to the concerned workman the management relying on the agreement marked as Ext. M-3 sent to the concerned workman to the Medica] Board for assess- ment of his age. The terms of the settlement are as follows:—
"TERMS OF SETTLEMENT"
1. It is agreed that in respect of employees who had at any time appeared before the Medical Board and their age were assessed, tbe age so assessed shall be final.
2. It is agreed that in respect of employees whose age has been recorded in the concerned original Form B Register manitained under the Mines Act and Rules made thereunder excluding those employees at 1 ahove, the age recorded in the Form B Register shall be final for them, 3. It is also agreed that in respect of employees who. arc not covered under (1) and (2) above and where there is any dispute in this regard, both the parties (Recognised Union and the Management) will discuss the matter mutually. In case of difference of opinion between them, the decision of the Company's Medical Board shall be final. The Company's MedicaJ Board to be constituted in this regard as and when required shall consist of three Company's Doctors/Medical Officers.
4. This settlement shall be effective from 1-11-1985 and covered the employees who are on the Rolls of the Company as on 1-11'-1985." 6. The settlement is clear enough that both the management and the union agreed to settle any dis- pute relating to age relying on the principles for- mulated therein. It is not the case of the concerned- workman that he did not attend the medical board for assessment of his age. I have failed to find out any illegality in assessment of the age of the concerned workman by the Medical Board. The management submitted that as a result of assessment of age of the concerned workman by the medical board it was the concerned workman who got its privilege. They disclosed that instead of superannuation with effect from 30-4-90 the concerned workman was superannuated with effect from 30-11-91. The management has submitted that the concerned workman in cousre of hearing has failed to produce any cogent document to show that he was actually 20 years of age on 16-4-54 while tho said; age was recorded in the Form B-Register. The concertled •workman i.c'WW-1 during his evidence has failed
7795 to produce any such relevant papers jn support of his claim. As such there is no reason to believe that the age of the concerned workman in the Form B Register was recorded as 20 years on 16-4-54. On the contrary fhere is reason' to believe that' as' the dispute relating to age of the concerned workman cropped up the management following the guidelines of the settlement rightly sent him to the medical board for assessment of his age. I consider that b> doing so the management did not commit any ille- gality. It is seen that the management on the basis of the Medical Board's report superannuated the concerned workman with effect from 30-11-91. As I have failed to find out any illegality in taking deci- sion by the management for superannuating the Concerned workman \vith effect from 30-11-91 on the-basis of the Medical Board I do not find any justification to interfere with the -management's decision- In, view of the facts .and circumstances disclosed above the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the fol- lowing Award is rendered:.
"The order No. ref: PM/S-21/M/90-91/3 dated 15-4-1991 issued by the Management of Mosa- boni Mine is justified. Consequently, the con- cerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.
New Delhi, the 5th December,. 2001 S. O. 3514.^-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribupal Udaipur, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. R. K. Marbles Ltd., The General Manager, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.
[No. L-29012/53/2001-IR (M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
7796 I KE GAZETTE OF INDIA,: DECEMBER,29,- 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923 [PART I I - £ E C. 3(11)]Present ;
Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS (Sr. Branch) Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 114/2001
Date of concluding ofihe hearing 31st Oct. 2001
Date of passing Award 13th Nov., 2001
Between :
The Management of the Manager, Finance & Administration, Gem Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Regd. Office-D/20, B.J.B. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. —1st Party-Management
(And)
Their Workmen, Shri Tapan Kurnar Sarangi, At. Ranpur, Po. Alaver, Via. B-.likuda, Dist. Jagatsinghpur (Orissa)
—2nd Party- orkman.
Appearances :
None. For the Ist Party -
Management.
None. For the 2nd Party-
Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29012/ 63/964R (M), dated 13-1-1997) :—
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001
"Whathsr the action of the Management of GEM Corporation of Orissa Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Tapan Kumar Sarangi even after completion of more than 5 years continuous service is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitlod to ?"
. S. O. 3515.—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, Bhubaneshwar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Gem Corporation of Orissa Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.
[No. L-2901?/63/96-IR (M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BHUBANESWAR
2. The case of tho Claimant (who will bs called as tlie 2nd Party) is that, he worked under the Management (herein after called as the lsrt Party) on daily wage basis from 23-6-1990 as Choukidar- cum-Peon. Thereafter he was given the work of Asst. Plant Operator. While working on 24-2-1996 a false and fabricated case was made out by the 1st Party-Management but they could not prove it against him. When the applicant was working to th.e kitchen a termination order was issued to one Shri Jpgi Naik an
The 1st Party-Management in his Written Statement has pleadod that, the 2nd Party-Work- man was engaged initially as a Watchman-cum-Peon as daily wage basis and subsequently, to attend various miscellaneous jobs. He was found indisciplined and creating law and order problem in the mines for which several warning was issued to him. He did not prove his conduct but become more mischievous and indiscjplined. It is urged that , on 19-1-1996 the 2nd Party- Workman with his two colleagues took the Excavator from the mine premises to some near by village carrying some people on it to attend a marriage ceremony. On 23-2-1996 at around 11 a.m. he also misbehaved with a daily rated local working woman. On 28-2-1996 when expla- nation was called for from the 2nd Party-Work- man and during the course of enquiry the applicant created disturbance. Charge was fra- med against the workman. Enquiry was conducted, but he had not attended the enquiry. So on the report of Enquiry Officer order of termination was passed and it was sent by Post. According to the 1st Party-Management termination is justified and legal.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties the following Issues have been settled.
L Whether the action of the Management of GEM Corporation of Orissa Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Tapan Kumar Sarangi, even after completion of more than 5 years of continuous service is leagl and justified ?
2. If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled 7
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. I
5. After framing of Issues both the parties were allowed to adduce oral evidence. The Issues were settled on 9-12-1997. Thereafter the work- man has not taken any step to adduce oral evidence or exhibit his documents in support of
77*7 his case. When the 2nd Party-Workman has challenged hjs termination the burden lies on him to establish that, he had worked five years and his termination has been made without any basis. The 1st Party-Management is required to lead evidence to disprove it But when there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the 2nd Party- Workman it will be presumed that he has got no material in support of his case for which he has not taken part in the proceeding before this Tribunal. So after perusal of the documents this Tribunal is of the opinion that the action of the 1st Party-Management of GEM Corporation of Orissa Limited in terminating the services o{ Shri Tapan Kumar Sarangi even after completion of more than 5 years of continuous service is legal and justified. This Issue is answered in favour of the 1st Party-Management.
ISSUE NO. II
6. In view of my findings given in respect of Issue No. II, the workman is not entitled for any relief.
7. Reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
S.K. DHAL, Presiding Officer Bhubancswar Naw Djlhi, the 5lfi December, 2001 S. O. 3516.—In pursuance of Ssction 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Madras Port Trust and their workrrian, which was received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.
[L-330I2/13/88-D. (Ill) (D)]
B. M. DAVID, Undef Secy.
m^JW&6A^m C* INDIA : fcECEMBE*^ ^OOl/FAmA 8. 1923 [V^t II-SEC, 301)1.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 30th day of October, 2001
Present :
THIRU S. R. SINGHARAVELU, B.Sc. B.L., Industrial Tribunal Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 1988 (In the matter of dispute for adjudication under See. 10(I)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 bstween the Workman and the Management of the Chairman, Madras Port Trust, NSC Bose Road, Madras—600 001.).
BETWEEN
Sri T. Sampushparaji No. 6, New Street, Nungambakkam, Madras-34.
AND
The Chairman, Madras Port Trust, NSC Bose Road, Madra&-S00 001,
Reference : Order No. L-33012/3/88-D.IH (B) 'dated 21-12-88 Ministry of Labour, Govt, of India{ New Delhi.
This dispute after remand coming on for final hearing on Thursday, the Ilth day of October, 2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter statements and all other material papers on record and upon hearing the. arguments of Thiru S. Vaidya- nathan for Tvl. Row & Reddy, advocates appearing for the Worker and of Tvl. A. L. Somayaji and R. Arumugam, advocates appearing for the Manage- ment, and this dispute having stood over till this day for consideration,- this Tribunal made the following ; • •
AWARD
The Govt, of India has referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :
"Wheihcr the Management of Madras Port Trust, Madras is justified in dismissing Sh. T. Sampushparaj, Signalman from service, w.e.f. 27-5-87 ? If not to what relief Sh. $ampushpai\ij is entitled to 7"
2. The main averments found in the Claim State- ment of the Petitioner are as follows :
The petitioner entered into service as Junior Signalman in the Madras Port Trust in the year 1981. He was on leave for 5 days from 27-12-86 to 31-12-86 and he reported'to duty on 2-1-87 for night shift after availing the compensatory off on 1-1-1987. He was suspended from service by an Order dated 3-1,-87 by the Deputy Port Conservator for alleged charge of misconduct, viz. Boarding the Vessel M. V. Nata at about 14.00 hours on 31-12-86 and unauthorisedly took away the pen of the Master of the Vessel imper- sonating as Anti Pollution Officer. He submitted his explanation. He pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Deputy Port Conservator ordered for a domestic enquiry to go into the charges alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and he was not given ample opportunity to defend the charge. The non-furnishing of the Master's report vjtiates the domestic enquiry ar.d violates the principles of justice. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service; The enqi-.iry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service since the charges Were grave1; misconduct affecting the business and reputation of Port Trust. Ho preferred an appeal to the Chairman and it was dismissed. It was not given any consi- deration as it is devoid oi merit. The domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not fair" and proper; Th* principles of natural justice and good conscience were not complied with by the Enquiry Officer. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The evidence of Kanriafl and DnfiBft- pathy is biased and motivated, He was not paid the subsistence allowance during the period: of suspension, as contemplated by clause (5) of 17(a)(l) vitiates thd enquiry proceedings. The charges framed against him are not proved by legal evidence. Conciliation failed. He prayed for setting aside the Order of dis- missal and reinstatement with full back wages.
3. The main averments found in the Counter Statement of the respondent are as follows :
The petitioner on 31-12-86 at about 14.00 hours boarded the Vessel M. V. Nata by impersonating him- self as Anti-Pollution Officer and met the Master of the VL-SSCI and unauthorisedly took away the Master's pen. The Master of the Vessel gave a report to the Depu
4. O:i' behalf of petitioner/workman, Ex. W-l to W-19 WJre1 marked' by content. Gn behalf of rcs- pOndent, MW-1 Thiru A: Thirt'jnr.Li has b^-. CALL- mined and Ex. M-l and CM' were marked.
5. Tho point for consideration is whether the Management'of Madras Port trust," Madras is justified in disnisr.ing Shri T. Sampushparaf, Signal man from service w.c.f. 27-5-87 ? If not to what relief Sri Sampushparaj is entitled to ?
6. The Point : This ' Industrial DisputA was earlier disposed by this Tribunal on 30-6-94 holding that this Tribunal had no ground to interfere with the punishment awarded to the Workmen and so the claim of the workmen Was dismissed. As against '-whith;'the Woi'kmeri preferred W.P. No. 13241/95 wherein an Order was passed on 20-7-2001 remitting - "back the^lfidustrial Dispute for reconsideration. In the process of remittance, certain glaring mistakes committed in the award of the Industrial Tribunal were also pointed out in the Judgement of the Writ petition. The evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer himself was found as a'mistaken one. Again incidence about the antecedents were not mentioned
"In "the Charge Memo was' also pointed but.
7. In order to reconsider the entire proceedings of the Enquiry, we have to'briefly see through the facts of the case! Ex. W-3 dt. 9-1-1987 is the Charge Memo. The charge was,
would show only the subsistence made during the cross examination. Similarly the other evidence available on record also shows not only the unautho- rised entry of workman into the vessel; but also the theft committed by him with respect to the pen of the Captain. The Captain has also identified the pen. It was recovered from the delinquent. In fact the workman returned the pen to Mr. Kannan who in turn gave it to the Captain on 3-1-87 at about 8.30 A.M- The petitioner was said to have brought the pen from his house. In this connection, the evidence on record was shown as if it was recorded by the Enquiry Officer himself. Even if we leave such por- tion of the evidence, the other available evidence of Mr. S. Kannan clearly shows that workman delivered the'pen~to Mr. Kannan who in turn delivered it to Captain who had identified it. 'So irrespective of the fact as to whether the workman' had brought his pen from his house of somewhere else, the fact remains that the workman 'had "delivered the pen, from his custody. We' are not concerned as to Whether he has brought it from his house or from some other place. In this regard, even' if the evidence said to have been recorded by the Eiiquiry Officer' himself ' is eschewable, the remaining portion of the evidence indicates the guilt of delinquent. Even in respect of the noh-tontaining of incidences of antecedents of 'the workman in the Charge Memo what we can tell is that deterrance in the punishment is required even for the gravity of the present misconduct of the Workman without referring to his antecedents. It is rtot Tas if deterrance iff punishment was required only if antecedents warfant it. " Sometimes even without referfing'to the'a'nteced^nts, the gravity of (he present ' misconduct itself may require a deterrent punishment. In this case impersonation made to enter into a VesseT and commission of theft of article of Captain, when proved would definitely require deterrence in punishment and that application of Section 11A can Hot come into pitture in view of the gravity of the misconduct.
"that the workman has boarded the vessel M. V. Nata at about 14.00 hours on 31-12-86 unauthoriscdly took the pen from the Master of the Vessel by impersonating himself as Anti Pollution Officer Which is a serious misconduct amounting to dishonesty and fraud 'with the Board's business."
Capt. V. K.Kapur, was asked to ctonduct the enquiry and the Asstt. Marine Officer G. Jayaraman was appointed as Presenting Officer. In the course of the enquiry, the evidence of Thiru Kannan, Engineer showed that the Deputy Chairman who had subse- quently met the Captain,-had asked the Captain by showing the pen w'Hettier it belonged to him; the Captain identified his pen and Deputy Chairman gave his pen to the Captain and he said that he Was sorry for all the inconvenience caused to the Captain. Thus the telling of Mr.Kannan about the happenings took place in the presence of Deputy Chairman and narration by the later cannot be said to be hear-say. There was also cloross-examination of Mr.Kannan by the workman himself. A reading of the same
8. So far as the application of Sec. 11A is con- cerned, it has been held in Catena of cases that the Courts cannot interfere with the punishment inflicted with the delinquent Unless it is shockingly dispropor- tionate. In this case, we have already found that we cannot call it as shockingly disproportionate. This is so because the gravity of misconduct is such that it Warrants a dismissal. Thus the citations in 1992 I LLJ p. 384, 1989 II LLJ p. 608 and 2000 (3) S.C.C. p. 450 are of no use to the workman. What all the above citations, connot is that only if the punish- ment is shockingly disproportionate to the miscon- duct done interference under Sec. 11A is required. This concept is accepted, but the facts of the case do not require interference under Sec. 11A of the Act. Again reliance was placed upon 2001 (2) LLN J854 ijU2Wl—137800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2G01/FAUSA 8. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3r(ii)] to the present case. While he seem to be very much confident in getting some other avocation, no interference in the punishment is required.
p. 460 wherein it was contended that the facts that the charges appearing to be of grave nature were proved per se does not automatically entail the impo- sition of the maximum or drastic punishment of dis- missal in all cases and as a matter of course. It was further held in that case that it is only in such circums- tance, Courts have held that past conduct or pervious track record of service or compelling circumstances have also to be J.aken into account and ihe management must be shown to have adverted to all such aspects before imposing a particular punish- ment. In that case, it was further held as follows :
10. Even on earlier occasion, similar mis- conduct was made by the same delinquent in December 1985 for which an enquiry was held and a lenient view was taken in awarding punishment and thus increment was withheld for one year without cumulative effect as is evident from Ex. M 1. Acquittal order about this incidence as established under Ex. C 1 judgement has nothing to do with the findings of this enquiry because the former was the result of benefit of doubt and . the later what was required was preponderance of probabilities. So viewed in any angle Sec. 1 .'. is inapplicable. Hence the action of Management in dismissing workman is justified. Award passed accordingly. No costs.
Dated at Chennai, this 30th day of October,
2001.
S R. SrNGHARAVELU
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner/We rkman ; None
For Respondent/Management : MW1 Thiru A.
Thirumalai (Proof affidavit)
Documents marked
For Petitioncr/Woi kman
Ex. W 1 3-1-87 : Suspension order issued to Petitioner-workman Thiru T. Sampushparaj (xerox)
Ex. W 2 : Explanation by petitioner/
we rkman to Ex. Wl
Ex. W 3 9-1-87 : Charge memo issued to
petitioner-workman (xerox)
EX. W4 12-1-87 Letter from petitioner-work- man to the management requesting a copy of Master's report (xerox) "Tn this case before us, a perusal of the order of the punishing authority as also the appellate authority disclose no such reference or considera- tion, at all. The appellant, at all stages before the Enquiry Officer, the punishing authority he also the appellate authority has been harping upon about his unblemished service of 22 years with the bank compelling circumstances and factors which were said to be beyond his control for the appellant acting in the manner in which he did the dire family circumstances, and the helpless position of his family, his preparedness at least to serve even in the svib staff category from which he was promoted as bill collector, for the remaining period of service, viz. fourteen years as on the date of order of dismissal and his assurance not to behave once again in the manner he has done once in his service careier resulting in the misfortune, for the sympathetic considei ation of the authorities in relation to the matter of punishment to be imposed, ulti- mately. To say the least, all these appear to have fallen on the deaf ears of the concerned nuthoritics only, since there was no consideration by any one of them, of any of such matter before imposing the punishment of dismissal. It is in the coniext of all these only the Tribunal, in this case appears to have been persuaded to adopt the . course of interfering with the quantum of punish- ment and consequently awarded compensation, in our view, of a very reasonable sum compared to the long years of service rendered and the number of years still left for him to go before attaining superannuation, in lieu of reinstatement."
Ex. W 5 15-1-87 : Enquiry notice issued to
Petitioner-workman
Ex. W 6 22-1-87 : Letter from Management informing the petitioner- workman that he may penise
Master's report (xerox)
Ex. W 7 .. : Proceedings of the Enquiry 9. A careful perusal of Appeal dated 2-8-1987 of the delinquent to the Chairman would go to show that enquiry was impartial and the workman did not rut up any of the difficult situation that he has to meet in case of dismissal. For the reason that no dis-advantageous or uncomfortable situation was ever picturised by the delinquent as a result of the order of dismissal, the facts of the above case may not be applicable
officer (xerox) Ex. W 8 .. : Presenting officer's summing
up report (xerox copy) Ex. W 9 .. : Petitioner workman's summing up report on the enquiry (xerox)
Ex. W 10 1-4-87 : Report of enquiry officer
(xerox)
Ex. W 11 13-4-87 : Second Show Cause notice
issued to Petitioner-workman (xerox)
Ex. W 12 30-4-87 : Explanation by petitioner-
workman to Ex. W 11 (xerox) Ex. W 13 27-5-87 : Order of discharge issued to
Petitioner/workman
Ex. W 14 2-8-87 : Appeal preferred by petitioner- workman to the manage- ment (copy)
Ex. W 15 16-10-87 : Order of Appellate Authority rejecting the Appeal of the petitioner-workman (xerox) Ex. W 16 2-11-87 : Petition U/S 2A of the Indus- trial Disputes Act raised by petitioner-workman before ihe Conciliation Officer (xerox (copy)
Ex. W 17 8-1-88 ; Counter filed by manage-
ment to Ex. W 16 (xerox) Ex. W 18 8-2-88 : Reply statement filed by petitioner-workman to Ex. W 17 (xerox copy)
Ex. W 19 19-7-88 : Conciliation failure report
(xerox copy)
For Management (After remand) Ex. M I April 86 Letter by Deputy Per: Conser-
vator to Sri T. Samousfhparaj- Court Document
Ex- C 1 16-3-88 Judgement copy by XVI M. M. G. T. in CC No. 7776/87
7801 New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001 S.O. 3517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between th,e employers in relation to the Cochin Port Trust, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 29-11-2001.
[No. L-35011/2/98-1R (M)]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM (Wednesday the 26th day of September, 2001)
Present ;
Smt. N. Thulasi Bai, B.A., LL. B,
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 1998 (Central)
Between
The Chairman, Cochin Port Trust, W/Island, Cochin 682003
Ami
The Workmen of the above concern represented by the General Secretary, Cochin Port Staff Association, Cochin
Representation ;
Sri. Joy Joseph, Advocate, Kottayam.
.. For Management.
Sri. Alex, M Arayath, Advocate, Kottayam.
.. For Petitioner
AWARD
This reference was,. made by the Government as per order, No. .:L-3501,l,/2798/IR (M) dated 17-8-98. The., dispute is between , the Cochin Port Trust "and .their workmen. The dispute refci-red is "Whether the action of the management of, Cochin Port Trust in fixing Jow?r pay to eri. A. D. Suany a al 9 o.'jnrs, Lascars th^n that7802 v THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEGEMBEft^^O&i/PAUBA 8. 1923 [PART JI"-SB"V 3(ii*J-, of some of their juniors w.e.f. 2-2-1993 is justified? If no,t, . to what relief the workmen, arc entitled 7" 2. If the reference the workmen are represen- ted by the General Secertary, Cochin Port Trust Staff. Association,, Kochi and the management is represented, by,.the. Chairman,.Cochin Port Trust, Cochin.
3. On receipt of notices issued from this court management filed vakkalath and the union secretary entered appearance in person. Union filed a claim statement raising the claims of the workman to which the management filed a written statement. Thereafter the case was pending for rejoinder and evidence. In spite of repeated chances the union did not file rejoinder and no evidence was adduced. Union was consecutively absent for. the last three posting. The manage- ment's counsel was, present. Under the above circumstances I am satisfied that the union and the wcjr.krn.cn., are not interested, in prosecuting, the dispute thereby it can be. found, that there is no pending industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated by this court.
In the. result,, an award is passed finding that there is no pending industrial dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust and its workmen represented by. the General Socretary, Cochin Port Staff Association to be adjudicated by this court.
Ernakulam, N. THULASI BAI, Presiding Officer 26-9-2001.
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001 S. O., 3518-—In pursuan.ee of, Section 17 of, the. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the. Central .Government hereby publishes the award of f the. Central. Government Industrial, Tribunal, Dh.a,nbad as shown, in the Annexure in the Indusr, trial Dispute bstwsen.the employers in relation to e management Hindustan Copper Ltd., anc)| their.
workmen, which . was.K received by the Central,,. Government on 23-11-2001.
[Nfll ;L-43(Hl/6/94-IRj^]. B., M^ DAVID, Under Secy.' ANNEXURE •
BEFORE THE, r CENTRAL G O Y E R W PW < • INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NQi 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT
Shri B. Biswas,.
Presiding Officer.
In the ma1,ter of an Ind^striaJL Dispute under section 10(l)(d) of the LD. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NQ, 116 OF 1995 PARTIES} : EinjpljOy.e,r.sJ;in..relation to the.jnana^e- .
mentt of Hin^u^than Copper Ltd. and their wqrkman.,
APPEARANCES ;
On behalf of the; workman : Shri D. Mukherjce,
Advocate and Shri K. Chakravorty, Advocate*
On behalf pf theemjoloyejs : Shri B. Joshi,
Advocate.
State : Jharkhand Industry : Copper.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th November, 2001.
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred,on them under Section 10(l)(d) of ihe LD. Acj., ,1947 hap referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-430U/6/94-I.R.(Misc), daled, the 28tb/29th Aug., 1995.
SCHEDULE
"Whether (he action oc the management of *M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., Indian Copper Complex, Moubhandar in dismissing S/Shri S. Singh Deo and B.N. Barik is justified? If iK>t, to what relief,;tbe workman, are entitled?" 2. The case of the concerned workmen as per W.S. in brief is as follows :
The concerned workmen in their W.S. submitted that they were employees under the management as Senior Technical Supervisor and Blaster Asstt. It has been alleged by them, as they were involved in the union activities the management was very much displeased with,them and. foe whicn they wanted to get rid of them in any manner, whosoever, andr not only the management dismissed them without issujng, any chargesheet and show cause t ut also initiated ttO*rri :rimjnal proceeding.. against. thc^n1: It. has been -, further t,suhmitted by the, workmen,that aftjCV- the,. order ,sof .dismissal passed by the. management all . efforts were taken to reconcile the dispute but their attempt went in vein, and for which they preferred Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High. Court, Patna, j Ranchi Bejach challenging, the. ordejc of dismissal, dt. 11-3-94-issued by th$, mai^gemeut against them,. It has beea,5ubn^itted.by the;workmen..i|hat the Hon/hle.,, High Court after hearing the said Writ Petition was pleased to quash the order of dismissal dated 11-3-94 pas£e,d byrthe ma-nqtgem.ent,rBiyt in spjt,e of quaking that, order Jhe imanagenjeptrdid.pot consider necessary-, to reinstate them to service and.there by violated the,. order of the Hon'ble High Court. As a result an industrial dispute was raised before the ALC(C), Chaibasa which resulted reference, to this Tribunal.
3. The management on the contrary after,filing W^.-cunvjejtfinder hay^ denied all the. claims and„ allegations which the concerned workmen, asserted, in their W.S.
The.,points for decision in this reference are :—
"Whether,,the action^ of .the management of\r M/a. Hindustan ..Copper.. Ltd., Indian . Copper,.. Complex, Mqubhandar in,.dismissing S/Shri S. Singh Deo and B.N. Bank' is justified? If not, to wha£ relief, the workman, are.,entit|ed£" -.
DECISION WITH REASONS
5. It .is seen that in Support, of this reference case neither party has adduced any evidence. Consider- ing the pleadings I find nt" dispute to hold that the concerned workmen were ,the employees under the., management. - I also, find. no,.dispute to hold that the concerned workmen were dismissed from service by order of the management dt. 11-3-94 without giving them any opportunity to show cause. Even, the concerned workmen were not, phargesheet,ed and,, no domestic, enquiry was held., In course of Rearing learned Advocate for the concerned, workrnen sub- mitted that as the concerned workmen were illegally dismissed from the services of the management due to whimsical attitude they preferred Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High, Court, Patna, Ranchi. Bench challenging the order of dismissal dt. 11 -3-94 passed, - against, them by the management- Learned Adyo-,. cate-for Ihc concerned,, workmen, further submitted that^the JJqn;bIe High CourJ. by, order dt. 7/19-4-95 in disposing of the said Writ Petition observed "In that view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the respondents, to initiate a departmental proceeding , and/or issue a proper notice before, passing "the im- pugned order. That-having not been done this Court has no. alternative, but, to-quash the order rdt. 11-3-94. However, it will be open/or the respc$-([ deptv if they .sa;desire^ to Dro^jd jn,accordant*,:-
with.law.V.- The^eb^erYHiqn-^f,,therH9p;^tlHig^tt Court, ^pe^-cle^rfe. that jthfi(prdftE of, diwpisftftl^^h 1 l-3-9^*ssue4 ,by,,]th*ir4|#fic^ntf;g^iri|t ^he^on^JWn ed worjfi?w.wa,s jqufts.hefl Jin^ as such it is clear that no such Qrdpjc °f di^ttiis^al star^d,s against the concern- ed workmen. It is seen that against the said order of the Hon'ble High Courjylhe management did not prefer any appeal before the, Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances it is clear that the concerned workmen are to be consi- dered ^as the employees vnde^,±hf .ma^a^^nj,,. It is the contention of the concerned ^W^Wi?11 that inspite of the said order of dismissal the management did .not consider.Jiecessa^y, t,o .TeinsJjatg4haRr. The- ma|ler in issue it .qu^te differen^pne^aqd fo$ w h^ the concerned workmen had the scope to take ap- propriate steps against the management for violation of.th".prdex .parsed Jbjy thejH^n'^Patfla^igh.Cou^ Ranchi Bench. When no such orderJVof dispi,ss^l_ stands. I have failed to understand how the con- rl -It
cerned workmen have made this reference again. Over the self same issue it is not expected that another, order is required t o, be, passed particularly whenv Hon'ble High Court has already quashed the. order of dismissal against the concerned workmen passed by the management.; As such,:, aftpc,.careful consi- deration of all the facts and circumstanaces I hold that 4he instant reference is not maiotainblc in the eyp.of Jew** The .ioncexoed -wor.ltB>ep .^wUl^e ,at ,H-t b e r t y^ takfc app^opfi^^t
B. BISwAS..i;
pre|iitMjP"-I Officer.
New, Dc}^- the j5th De^ujbcr,, 2O0i • S.O. 3519.—In: pursuance of Section 17 of the IndusUioJ .Disputes Act, 1947 > (14 of 1947), the Cental. G^yej^incBt, Jierebyv,pub}ishef;, the Award^f tha;Jn7804 THE GAZETTE OF ittDIA : DECEMBER29/'^OOi/PAOSA 8. 1923 LPART II—SBC. 3(3)} employers in relation to the The Project vvh'ch was Manager, Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Centra] Government on 23-11-2001.
[No, L-43012/7/1999-IR(M)]
B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Jhonson without following the procedure laid down under the I.D. Act , and S.O.S. Act is justified ? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled ?" : 7805
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar
Adjudication
LD. No. 157/2001
Refer, No. L-120ll/l8/200l/IR(D-I) dated 7-9-200] BETWEEN
Asstt General Secretary
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Stgfl Association C/o Bishcshwarganj Branch State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Varanasi (UP.) (espousing cause of S.K, Misra & S.B. Singh)
AND
The Branch Manager State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Bisheshwai'ganj Varanasi
AWARD
By order No. L-]2011/18/2001/IR(B-I) dated 7-9-2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exorcise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Asstt General Secretary, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Staff Association. Varanasi and the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Varanasi for adjudication.
The reference is produced as under:
"Whether the action of the management or Statr Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Varanasi, in stopping the Special Asstt. Allowance of Shri S.K, Misra and Shri S.B. Singh fr-om August 2000 stating that posts not notified/Identified by the manage- ment is justified? If not, what relief the em- ployees are entitled?"
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001
SO 3520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(14 oi1 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the
Centra] Government Industrial Trib ma!-cum-
2. On receiving the reference, notices were sent to the parties viz: the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bisheshwarganj, Varanasi and the Asstt. General Secnfary, State Bank of Bik8T:r & Jaipur Staff Association, Varanasi. Management did not respond.
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the management of State Bank of Bjkaner
& Jaipur and thci* workman, which was received by
the Contra] Government on 29-11-2001.
[No. L-12011/18/2001-IR(B.-I)]
A JAY KUMAR,. Desk Officer
WHb6 THE GAZETTE OF I > " ^ - i ^ a W ^ * " H i ^ , ^ " 0 1 vtm U SA 8. 1923 [PART-Ha*"ec^(ii)j
^AND
7807
prepared by him along with his father's authorisation letter was passed on to Mr. Sclvaraj, a special a-,sistant ineharge for celearing depaitment. After this sum of Rs. 900'- so credited to his S.B. Account he withdraw a sum of Rs. 800/- to make urgent pay- ments for repair of his father's house. In the books of the branch, relevant entries were made as debit and credit entries in the S.B. Account of his father and his S.B. Account. These transactions were normal ones and the entries were passed according to the procedure laid down. These entries were made by the staff at the counter using their uesr identity words and their passwords which were unique. Those words are not known to any other members of staff. On 11-12-93, in the afternoon Mr. V. Srinivasan, Senior Manager (Operations), PB South called the Petitioner and made enquiries as to the missing of vouchers relating to Rs. 900/- that day. The Petitioner told him that he handed over the said vouchers along with the authorisation of his father and that the vouchers were misplaced along with the above said authorisation letter and he had kept duplicate of his father's authorisation on his arrival from Hyderabad. Mr. Srinivasan asked Mr. G.J. Kamalanathan, Mangaer, Customer service, to go into this matter and report back to him. He submitted a report on 13-12-93. But he did not call the Petitioner for any clarification in this regard. All of a sudden, the Petitioner was placed under sus- pension on 15-12-93 and he was informed that they have decided to hold a departmental enquiry. Subse- quently the Petitioner received a letter dated 17-12-93 from the U Party/Management on 22-12-93 mention- ing the alleged misconduct committed by the Peti- tioner. The charge memo did not contain any enclosure of documents or list of witnesses or list of documents. The Petitioner therefore, could not give his explanation to the charges, So he wrote to the Disciplinary Authority to furnish him the copy of the materials/documents on which the charges were based to enable him to reply the charges and requested for postponement of enquiry to a later date, \n his absence in the house, the bank dropped a letter dated 27-12-93 at 3.00 p.m. conveying that the Petitioner had to inspect the records on the same day between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m. and to appear for enquiry on the following day at 3.30 pm. Therefore, he could neither go to the branch before 5.00 p.m. for submit his explanation to tho charge sheet at 10.00 A.M. on 28-12-93. On 28-12-93, the Petitioner's represen- tative requested for sufficient lim? to prepare and plan his defence. But the Enquiry Officer declined his request. Hence, the defence representative raised initial objections at the enquiry. Rut the F.nquiry Officer did not give any valid clarification. He mechanically conducted the enquiry and examined five witnesses for the management, 12 documents were marked as management exhibits. The Petitioner on 1-12-1982 in Rcspondent/Management/Standard Chartered B;:i:k. His father Mr, Yuvaruj was an officer in the Respondent/Bank for over ?5 years and retired fiom service at his ago of superannuation The computer system was introduced in the branches of the rc-pendent bank in 19R6 including ill- Chennai office where the Petitioner was working. Each department in the Respondent/Hank is provided with computer terminals. Access to computer is. strictly I'.^ii'icled and those ol the Award Staff and officers who have 1o work on computers and have user idi.-n'.itv and passwords known to the individual award stall/officer concerned only. Only the user identity holder can enter the system and opeiate it with the password. He only has the access. The system beside!) has the facility i'or locking the opera- tion by the operator and if it is to be opened again user identity will be keyed in and the password is to be led in I'or each operation otherv ise the system will reject the operation. The father or the Petitioner maintains a S.B. Account in the bank. He had to go to Tirupathi between 29-11-93 and 9-12-94 and to Hyderabad between 11-12-93 and 20-12-92 in the midst of construction of his building, So he en- trusted the Petitioner with the task of pursuing the construction work in his absence and authorsied him to meet expenses thereof, for which purpose, he handed over the petitioner undated authorisation letters. The Petitioner was working in the clearing department in 1993. On 4-12-93 he prepared a voucher for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 4600/- from his father's S H. account bearing No. 15-2-96107 on the strength of the authorisation of his father, as this amount and thereabout was urgently re- quired for defraying expense1- for repairs in his father's house. He accordingly, initialled the column "prepared by" in the said voucher. As he was working in the clearing department, where he was routinely preparing vouchers for reversing entries effected by way of clearing, same narration due to foice of habit was incorporated in this relevant voucher also. The same was the case with regard to another similar voucher prepared by him on 11-12-93 in identical circumstances. Along with voucher for Rs. 4600/-, the authorisation letter therefor from his father was handed over to Mr. Selvaraj for making necessary entries in the S.B. Account of his father Mr. Yuvaraj in his S.B, Account. Thereafter he had withdrawn this sum of Rs. 4600/- by way of three withdrawals, the first one for Rs, 1000/- on the same day i.e. 4-12-93 and three other withdrawals aggregating to Rs. 3550/- two days later. Similarly on 11-12-93 he got transferred a sum of Rs. 900/- from his father's account to his S.B. Account for the purpose of making similar payments for the same purpose, on the basis of his father's another authorisation U-itcr. Tor this purpose, the voucher
3854 GI/2O01—lf>7803 I'HIi GA7HTIU OF INDIA : DBCLMHKR 2') 2001 TAUSA S. 1923 [PARI JT— Sic. ?,(\\)\ himself had examined LIS defence witness and three documents were marked on hi- iidc. No oral or docu- mentary evidence was adduced in the enquiry to prove the allegations in the c hartre sheel against Ihe Petitioner The findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 28-1-94 has no basis. He gave t he findings bused on surmises, pre- sumptions and assumptions. His findings art- ill conceived, perverse and violation if principles of natural justice, fair play and bereft of any application of mind on his part. The Disciplinary Authority by his letter dated ?8-01-94 found the Petitioner guilty of all the allegations mentioned in the charge memo and proposed a punishment of dismissal from service without noiicc and fixed a date for personal h i r i n g. In the personal hearing the Disciplinary Authority informed the Petitioner that the hearing would be confined to the nali.re of the proposed punishment and no suggestion relating to the findings would be recorded or considered in the personal hearing. Hence, it is against the provisions of Bipartite Settle- ment of 1966. The Petitioner requested the Chief Executive by his letter dated 14-2-94 to intervene in this matter but it was not responded. The Petitioner submitted a W'cr dated 17-2-94 to ihe Disciplinary Authority stating Lhat he would appear for personal hearing without prejudice to his right to make his submissions on the findings rlso, However, the Dis- ciplinary Authority hc;'j'd him only on the nature of proposed punishment and passed an order dated 19-2-94 imposing tl.e Petitioner a punishment of dis- missal from service without any notice. The Petitioner appealed against that order. The Appellate Authority after hearing the claimant at, Chennai on 30-4-94 issued an order on the same day rejecting the Peti- tioner's appeal without any LpplicLihoii nl nnnd. It is perverse and erroneous. The punishment of dis- missal imposed by the Respondent/Management is totally unjustified, aibitrary. a violation t,f principles of natural justice, vindiaive and discriminative. The Petitioner has put more than 12 years of continuous service in the Respondent/Hank. This Hon'ble Tribunal has got powers to inteifcre with the punish- ment as per Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to impose any le^er punishmeri. if considered necessary. Hence, it is prayed ihat this Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the dismissal of the Petitioner is not justified and direct the Respondent,Bank to reinsUue the Petitioner with coi-linuity of service, full back waces
• and all other aiterdanl benefits.
3, The averm.MUs in the Counter Statement of the
11 Party/Manageme.U are briefly as follows :
Respondent/Hank on 3-I2--S3 and the charre sheet dated 17-12-93 was issued to him. Apart from the Petitioner had fiaudt'lenlly and dishonestly input the Lransaclions in the computer as allegid in Ihe charge memo, he had prepared false vouchers and also put forged .signatures of other officers of the bank to show that the vouchers were authenticated ard the input was efleeted by the regular data entry operators of the clearing department, though he had effected the input unauthorisediy and using password of Data Entry Operator Mr. N.D. Rajkumar, He had b oken the seal of the bundle of vouchers of 4th December, J993 and inserted forged vouchers pre- pared by him. A domestic enquiry giving full oppor- tunity to the Petitioner was conducted. The Petitioner participated with the assistance of an official of the union of his choice. The enquiry was conducted in eompl'ance with principles of natural justice. Wit- nesses have been, examined by Respondent/Bank to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Management witnesses were cross examined Dy the Petitioner through his chosen Union representative. Various documents wer_" produced by the Respondent, Bank to p.-ove the charges levelled against the Peti- tioner. The Petitioner was allowed to give his state- ments in the enquiry. After due analysis of oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer fcur,d that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved, Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner as to why the proposed puni.siinK-.ut of dis- missal should not be imposed on him. Pursuant to the personal hearing, given to the Petitioner, he was dismissed from service by the Respondent/Bank wiih- oul notice as per order dated 19-2-94 ard in the appeal also the punishment imposed on the Petitioner was confirmed by the Appellate A.\M.ori;y, The pi.i,,">!,- ment of dismissal was accorded only after following the due process and according to principles of natural justice. There has been no victimisation and no reason to do so by the Respondent/Bank. Any com- mercial undertaking like the Respondent Bank expects high integrity from the employees. Since the Petitioner was employed in trust and he was found indulging in dishonest and fraudulent acts, the Respondent/ Management cannot repose any confidence in him. If this Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not fair and proper, then an opportunity may be alforded to adduce additional evidence LO prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner before this Court. This is a case wherein the workman has committed misconduct which is prejudicial to the interest of the bank. In view of the grave nature of the misconduct committed by the Management, the Management can- not repose any confidence inthe workman. Theiefore, the punishment of dismissal is justified and the same The II Parly/Management Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter re firs to as Respondent) admits that the Peliljor.er was appointed as a clerk in the 7809 cannot be interfered. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may be "pleased to dismiss the claim petition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, by the consent of Lhe counsel on cither side, the docu- ments were marked us JEx. W-l to W-10 and M 1 to M-17. No one was examined as a witness, on either side. The learned counsel on either s_idc have advun- ccd heir respective arguments.
5. The point for my consideration is—
"Whether the. action of the Management of Standard Chartered Bank, Madras in imposing the punishment of dismissal on Sii Y. Kumanan is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief lhe workman is entitled '.'"'
Point ;
7810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29. 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923 [PART It—-SEC. -Will1 is his evidence that Mr. C. J. Kamalanathan asked
him how ho had transferred Rs. 500 from hit, father1 •; account without nuthorily and thai his father w;>^ going out of the town he had given him one lettei of withdrawal dated 11-12-93 and it was found lo be missing and that Sri C. J. Kamakinathan reported the matter to Mr. Sriuivasan since the vouchers were not available. He explained the matter to Srinivasan and agreed to procure duplicate authorisation from his father and it is his further evidence that when he went to Nangunallur he found that he left for Hydera- bad on 10th evening itself. Earlier in his evidence, he has stated that his lather gave letter of withdrawal dated 11-12-93, if really his father had already left Hyderabad on 10th December, 1993, how he could have issued withdrawal letter dated 11-12-93 to the Petitioner. The fact that he had withdrawn Rs. 4,550 and Rs. 800 as stated in the charge memo are noL disputed. Fx. M-15, M-16 and M-I7 are the xerox, copies of baich slip, debit slip and credit slip dated 4-4-93 respectively. In all ihe.se three documents, in the place prepared by the Petitioner only has initialled it. That shows all these three documents have been prepared by the Petitioner him- self in his uwn handwriting and he has not disputed the same. From this it is seen that he has taken the initiative to del" it and credit in the accounts and had withdrawn the amounts and whether they were done with the knowledge and the concurrence of his latin./ is the matter to be proved only by the Petitioner, the delinquent employee himself in the domestic enquiry. The Petitioner as delinquent employee had evamincd himself us defence witness had chosen, to mark F.x. -1 IA and IB as threw litters said to have been written b by his father Mr. Yuvaiaj. The xircx copy of those letters are Ex. M-l and M-2 Seiics (1 and 2). Ex. M-2 series have been filed as dupJicuie letters without any dates and without mentioning the amount to be transferred from his savings account. Ex. M-l is the letter dated 28-12-93 written by the father of the Petitioner stating'that he had given two letters for withdrawal fiom his S.B. account to his son Mr. Y. Kumanan. The said Mr. Yuvaraj the father of the Petitioner has not examined as defence witness in the domestic enqiiry. Why he gave such an authorisation letter without date and without men- tioning the amount that too his son, who is not a stranger to him is not explained. He could have given blank cheques to his son. If a contention of the Petitioner is accepted as correct, that his fathtr gave authorisation letter on 11-2-93, there is no authorisation for the transaction he has done on 4-12-93. In his evidence, he has spoken in the Chief Examination itself, about only one letter for with- drawal, said to have been given by his father as an authorisation. That too, when he already left for Hyderabad on lOih iwelf. how ii could have k vn
possible is not explained. Sr. Manager Mr. Srinivasan who examined as MW-I has spoken about Mr. C. J. Kamalanathan, Customer St,i\ices Manager Uiiiic a> him on 11-3-93 itself and brought to his notice about his attention was drawn by the Special Asstl. about his transaction for Rs, 900 in the accounts of the Petitioner and his father without any supporting vouchers and it is his evidence that at that time the Petitioner was called outside his cabin when called inside and told, him that he made a serious mistake ofinputing entries into the computer system without any vouchers. In cross examination also he asserted that while Mr. Y. Kumanan was in his room admitted that in fact he has posted the entnes without vouchers. The Customer Service Manager Mr, C.J. Kamala- nathan has been examined as MW2 in the domestic enquiry. He was also spoken about this fact and has given a consistent evidence to that of MW1. The Special Assistant in the clearing department Mr. Selvaraj was also examined as MWI. It is his evidence that as usual when he was checking the hatches against printouts he found while checking that one batch was missing for one item Rs, 900 and when he saw the transfer was made by Y. Kuma- nan he asked him about the batch, he told him -that there is no batch and he will produce the batch on Monday for transaction. He has also been duly cross examined by defence represents: ive in detail. Further witness for :he Management that the clerk in the clearing department Mr. Rajkumar has also been examined. When lie was questioned about the posting the item Rs. 4600 appearing under User ID MAR, he said he did not post that item, Me has also stated in his evidence, when he left the compu- ter open without quitting from the system for attend- ing sonv othc" work anybody can m-'ikc Li'iy entry in that computer at that time and there by in the print out his ID will be reflected. Another clerk in the clearing department Mr. RaghunaThan has also been examined as MW5 in the enquiry. -He has also stated in his evidence that when he left the compu- ier open for attending some other work somebody might have made entries in his computer and in that case his ID is reflected. Ex. Ml letter dated 28-12-93 said ;o have been issued by :he father of the Petitioner it subsequent to Jic issuance of charge sheet Ex.W3 dated 17-12-93. Ex.-WIO is the xerox copy of the letter dated 2S-I-94 sent by the Disci- plinary Authority .o the Petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report. In the report of the departmental enquiry conduced by the Disciplinary Authority himself, reason has been given for his conclusion lhat I he charges levelled against the Petitioner has eeri i ioved. The perusal ol Lhe report cknly show-, 7Slt
"the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the hnquiry Officer unless findings are perverse and not supported by any evidence." From all these things it is seen that the contentions raised by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that for his plea that the action of the Management/Standard Charter- ed Bank, Madras, in imposing punislimen of dis- missal from service against him as illegal and unjusti- fied is not substantiated. On the oilier hand, there is ample evidence available in this case to come to the conclusion that the action of the Management of Standard Chartered Bank in imposing the punish- ment of dismissal on Sri Y. KumaiiLin is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6, lii the result, an Award is passed holding that the action of the II Party/Mangcment/Standard Charter- ed Bank, Madras in imposing the punishment of dismissal on Sri Y, Kumanan is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and tjped by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 16th November, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN. Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
On either side : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED :
hor the I Party/Workman :—
l.x. No. Date Description
Wl 27-09-93 Xerox copy of the notice i-sued
by Management
W2 13-12-93 Xerox copy of the memorandum from the Manager Customer Ser- vices, Madras :o Sr. Manager, Operation*)
W3 17-12-93 Xerox copy of the chargesheet of the Petitioner issued by Ihe Management
W4 23-12-93 Xerox copy of the proof of deli- very of chargesheet and sus- pension order.
W5 23-12-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to the Disciplinaiy Authority
W6 27-12-93 Xero\ copy of the letter from ihe Disciplinary Authority Lo the Petitioner that he has analysed about oral and documentary evidence let in on either side and had come lo a pro- per conclusion. From the available materials in this ease, it is seen except the Petiiioner Mr. Y. Kumanan nobody would have been interested in making such transaction of transferring of amounts iium one S.B. account to another S.B. Account, inci- dentally, here the accounts happens Lo be the Peti- tioner as well as his father's account 1. So, the perusal of the enquiry repor'. clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer's findings are supported by evidence and he has given cogent and logical reasons for arriv- ing at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee has been proved in the domestic enquiry. He lias also clearly stated in his report the circumstances, the inferences drawn and also the compatibility of the Petitioner for com- mitting the misdeeds. Admittedly the Petitioner has been working in the clearance department the ac- counts are only the Saving Bank department yel the transaction had been put forth in the clearance de- partment. Both the clerks in clearing department MW4 and MW5 have stated that they have not put the transactions in the clearance department. So from all these things, it is seen except the Petitioner nobo- dy would have been interested in making daia entries into the computer in the clearance department for the transactions in the Savings Bank account in the savings bank account department. So under such circumstances, it is not correct to say that there was no documentary or oral evidence adduced in the enquiry to prove the allegations in the chargesheet against the Petitioner and the Enquiry Officer's find- ings has no basis on evidence, that it is based on surmises, presumptions ;md assumptions. It is also incorrect to say that his finding is ill conceive, perverse and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. From the perusal of the enquiry proceedings, it is seen that the reasonable opportu- nity was given to the Petitioner and his contention that he was not given reasonable opportunity in the domestic enquiry is not correct. A chargesheet dated 17-12-93 was recerived by him on 23-12-93 the actual examination of witnesses commenced on 31-12-93. Nothing has prevented the Petitiner to give his explanation o the chargesheet prior to the commencement of the domestic enquiry on 31-12-93. So, it is incorrect to stae that he was not given suffi- cient time to submit his reply for the chargesheet. Further his contention thai he has not given sufficiem time to reply to the enquiry report is also incorrect. So, from all these things, it is seen that this Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer since they Are not perverse and not supported by any evidence. It is held by the Supreme Courl in a case report 190S I I 1 .1 619 Secretary in Govt, Home Department & Ors. Vr. Srivaigundam that
W7 <)>02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from ihe Petitioner :o i],e Disci- plinary Authority7812 THE GAZETTE OF TNDFA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923 |PAKT N — S E C. 3(ii)] 07-02-94 • Xerox ropy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority o the Petitioner
23-12-93
W9
Xi'i'n> copy ot the letter from the Petitioner o Hie Discipli- nary Authority
2K-01-94
WIO
Xerox%c\.py of the letter from the Disciplinary Authoiity to the Petitioner
For the 1) Pany/M; inagement :—
Dale
Description
i:x, No.
28-12-93
MI
Xerox copy of the leUer from Sri Yuvuraj to Disciplinary Authority
Nil
M2
Xerox copy of the Ic tor from Sri Yuvaraj o the Management. 15-12-93
M3
f
Xerox ei.py of the letter Lo the Petitioner from the Disciplinary Anthony
28-12-^3
M4
Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings
17-01-94
M5
Xerox ci;py of the memorandum from the Manager, Irdi'stnal Relations to he Senior Manager,
Employee Relations.
27-01-94
M6
Xerox copy of ihc note to ihe legal Advisor from the Disci- plinary Authority.
19-02-94
M7
Xerox ropy of the things dis- cussed at v.he executive centre. 18-02-94
MK
Xerox copy of the proceedings of the personal hearing granted 'o Petitioner
19-02-94
M9
Xerox copy of the dismissal order of the Disciplinary Autho- rity
02-04-94
M10
Xerox copy of the lot:IT from tin- Petitioner to Appellate Au- thority
30-04-94
Mil
Xerox copy of the p-oce-edings of personal hearing by the Ap- pelhite Authority.
04-06-^4
M12
Xerox copy of the lrttor from iho Hc:;d of Hum^n Resources to the Petitioner
22-05-95
M13
Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner o Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) MI4 Nil
Xerox cony of the U'A of witnesses lisl ol Oocimieni1. lelird upon by i he Resp u d e i i.
04-12-93 Xerox copy of the batch slip M15
No, CLTK03
04-12-93 Xerox copy nf the debii slip of M16
Sri Yuvaraj.
04-12-93 X e i ox i x py oi ,K ticclu slip ol M17
the Petitioner.
Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001 S.O. 3522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the tfward of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Central Railway, Mumbai and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 29-11-2001.
[No. L-41012 8,99-IR(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO, II, MUMBAI
PRESENT
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2 96 of 1999 Employers in relation to the Manage- ment of Central Railway, Mumbai.
The Divisional Railway Manager, Cenlral Railway, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, C.S.T. Mumhii 100001.
AND 7:; 13 THEIR WORKMEN
The Divisional Secretary, Madhya Railway Kannehuri Saiigh, 33. Moli Bhuvan, Dr. D'Silvn Road, Dadar, Mumbai -40002 8.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer.—Mr. Suresh Kumar,
Advocate.
For the Workmen.—Mr. M. B. Anchaii-
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated 17th October. 200 [
AWARD
The Government of India- Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-410I2K 991 IK (B-I), did. I i-5-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 01 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have re- ferred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication : —
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Central Railway, Mum- bai, by not giving proper seniority, promotion and transferring the ser- vices of workman. Shri N. B. Joshi from HQ to Division by pot follow- ing Departmental rules is justified? If not, what relief the workman Shri N. B. Joshi is entitled to V
workman therefore, contended that he is en- titled to seniority and promotion from the dale of his junior promoted as Cook i.e. from 27-1-94. It JS contended that he was entitled to overtime wages since he is a line staff, how- ever, that was not paid to him, therefore he had filed an application under section 33 (c) ( I ) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The union espoused his cause by strike notice dt. 9-4-96 and thereafter the railway management remov- ed him from Pantry Car and suspended on 26-8-96 against which- the Union had riled complaint dtd. 8-10-96 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the ALC (C), Mumbai. It is contended the manage- ment on that enraged and consequently, chargesheeted the workman on 31-10-96 against which, union gave a strike notice. His suspension order was revoked by Order dtd. 27-12-97 and immediately thereafter, il is contended by the workman that, he was trans- ferred from Mumbai Division to Punc on 16-1-97 wilh malafide intention. He is staff .attached to Head Quarter Office, Mumbai whose competent authority is Chief Commer- cial Manager, catering- Mumbai CST, how- ever, he has been transferred by Senior Divi- sional Personnel Officer Central Railway, Divisional Office. Mumbai C.S.T. The union approached the ALC vide letter dtd. 30-7-98; however, Conciliation failed. Therefore, the instant reference contending that the workman was victimised for his trade union ac'ivitie.s, following unfair labour practices, not giving him seniority and promotion and transferring him from Head quarters office to Pune, con- trary to departmental rules, Therefore, h^ contends, he be given Seniority and Promo- tion and his transfer order be held illegal and unjustified.
7KU HIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : LU-CLiMUtlR ?'), 2U01,. I-'AUSA X. 1913 [PAIU II—Stc 3(iij]management closed the evidence vide purshis (Exhibit-15).
5. Union tiled Written submissions at Exhi- bit-16 and the management (Exhibit-20). Heard the Learned counsels Shri Anchan for the Union!Workman and Shri Suresh Kumar for the management at length, I have gone through the written submissions. On perusing the record as above and hearing the counsels at length, I record my finding on the following issues for the reasons mentioned below :— Issues Findings
1. Whether (he tribunal has juris- diction to decide the reference?
Yes.
2. Whether the action of the management in not giving pro- per seniority to Mr. Joshi is justified ? Yes.
3. Whether the action of the management in not giving pro- motion to Joshi is justified ? Yes,
4. Whether the action of the management in transferring Joshi from Head Quarters to Division is justified ? No.
5. If not, what relief the workman As is entitled to ? per order.
REASONS
under Article 309.3 1 1 of Constitution of India. Therefore. Mr. Joshi being a Civil Servant and not the workman, provisions of I.D. are not applicable to him. It is contended that, work- man is appointed in a transferable post and he is liable to be transferred anywhere within the Statutory Unit. There is no vested right in the employee to be posted or continued to be posted at a particular place. His transfer Order was issued in the administrative nature by which workman does not get right to challenge the same which passed in the exigencies of services wherever the adminis- trative need arises, therefore, the transfer order is proper and legal. So far seniority and Promotion is concerned it is contended the concept of Junior supercccding the senior is not applicable where the promotion is by way of Selection method. Where there is selec- tion, the junior if more meritorious to the, senior would supersede his senior. After issuance of chargeshcet to the workman he is not entitled to be promoted. It is contended that Mr. Birendra Singh Thakur belongs to ST category where as Mr. Joshi belongs to General category. None of the General cate- gory candidates have been promoted as cook. Shri Birendra Singh Thakur was promoted as per the rules and regulations of the Central Government. The workman cannot be com- pared with Mr. Thakur. It is contended that Mr. Thakur was appointed in SCiST quota on 9-1-91 as regular Assistant-Cook in Grade of Rs. 800-1500 whereas services of workman were regularised w.e.f. 13-11-92. Tt is con- tended the management rightly promoted Shri Thakur, therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the workman on his Seniority and Promotion. For all these reasons the management contended to dismiss the claim of the workman.
4. By way of Rejoinder (Ex-7), the work- man reiterated the recitals in the Statement of Claim and denied the recitals in the Written Statement, My Learned Predecessor on the rival r>lcadin?s of the parties, framed Issues at Rxhibit-9. The workman Mr Toshi fil'-d pffi- dnvi* (Exhibit-1 1 ). by w?y of E\amimtion-in- Chicf. who was cross-examined h\r the '"•in:^1- ment and thereafter closed evidence vide pur- shis (Exhibit-!2). The Asstt. Personnel Offi- cer, Mr. P. M. Morwoni in the nfW of Rnii- wnv TVpnrtment. filcrf iiflirlnvit Fyhihit-'T nnd Mi- Ournmsinghrmi Senior Per-oiu'vl Offir^r: fT"O'M bv wny of Fxnininniion-in Chief anil af'tT this cross-examination by the workman
6. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Railway Management Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that services of Shri Joshi, Assistant Cook are governed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and he is a Government Servant Civil Servant and that Railway ser- vant DAR 1968 are framed under the rules. The Central Administrative Tribunal would adjudicate the matters relating to Central Government Servants. He further submitted that the service of Railway is not for profit motive which is statutory in nature. Func- tion performed by the Railway arc welfare messure to its citizens which fall in the union list and therefore, Mr, Joshi is not a work- man within the definition of Section 2(s) nnd the Railway is not an Industry' under Section 2(i) of the Industrial Dismite Act, therefore, this Iribunnl has no jurisdiction to f-ntcrrnin and decide th'* refej'ence. The V'irncd counsel Mr. Anchan urged that by mtrnn of judgments il is clear that railway is nn industry and that jurisdiction is conferred upon the- tribunal created by statute to deal with specific subjects which would not be excluded by wirtue of Section 14 of the Ad- ministrative Tribunals Act. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in L. Robert D'Souza Vs. Executive Engineer. Southern Railway 1982 I LLJ pg. 330 para 25, clearly pointed out that the Railway is an industry. Their Lordship in CST Mumbai Vs. Raj an Kumar Mohalik 2000 III CLR 1 17, in para.4 clearly observed that Industrial Tribunal has jurisdic- tion since Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and confer the same on the Tri- bunal created under it. In para. 4 Krishna Prasad Gupta Vs. Controller. Printing and Stationery, 1996 SCC (L & S) 264 it is observed as under :—
7315 In para. 21 it is observed as follows :—
"The 'Saving Clause' or the 'Saving Phrase1 (not in the sense of "Re- peals and Savings") divides "juris- diction" into the classes namely, "jurisdiction" which is transferred to and vested in the Tribunal and "jurisdiction" which is not so trans- ferred, and is, on the contrary saved. When the jurisdiction thus became exercisablc by the Tribunal, it was provided by Section 28 that no court shall exercise the jurisdic- tion, powers and authority on and from the date from which such juris- diction, powers and authority be- comes cxercisable by a Tribunal Tt, however, exeepts :—-
(a) the Supreme Court; or
"Administrative Tribunal have been con- stituted under the Act made by the Parliament under Article 323 A of the Constitution for providing an exclusive machinery for the adjudi- cation or trial of dispute and com- plaints with respect to recruitments, as also conditions as Vice of per- sons appointed to public services and posts, so as to cut down the time spent by public servants in litigation in ordinarv courts and to provide them a relief at the hands of persons hearing and deciding ser- vice litigation exclusively." Reverting back to Section 14, we may immediately notice the striking feature that this section being with the words, "save as otherwise ex- pressly provided in this Act" which constitute an extremely significant expression as thev nurport to consti- tute a "Saving Clause". This ex- pression has also been used in the opening naragranh of sub-section (3) of Section 14.
Whai is intended *o be saved is indicat- ed in Section 28 which incidentally, also purports to exclude the jurisdic- tion of almost all the courts in ser- vice matter. Section 14 and Section 28 have, therefore, to be read toge- ther to find out the real intent to the legislature as to the extent of jurisdic- tion retained or evrliwW)
3854 GI/2001—17
(b) any Industrial Tribinal, Labour Court or other authority consti- tuted under the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 or any other cor- responding law for the time being in force.
In para. 22, their Lordshins have observed as follows :—
"Tt is therefore, apparent that in spite of Section 14 of the Act, the jurisdic- tion of the Industrial Tribunal Labour Courts or other authorities, under the Industrial Disputes Act or Authority created under any other corresponding law remains unaffected".
In para. 39, Their Lordships have observed that :—
"Learned Counsel for the respondent then contended that since clause (b) of Section 2 has been deleted bv Act 19 of 1986 and the Act has been made applicable to all persons em- ployed in industrial establishments and factories to whom the Act- as originally enacted did not apply, and the jurisdiction of all courts has come to be vested in the Tribunal.", It is stated 'hat this contention has no substance.
After the above observations Their Lord- ships have observed in p;ira 40 ns follows. : —
"While deleting clause (b) from Section 2 as to mpkc the Act applicable7816 11 Hi GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 2'), 2(IO1.T'AUSA 8. 1923 LPART II—Src. 3(ih| to workmen etc. Parliament by the same Amending Act, namely. Act 19 of J 986, introduced clauses (a) and (b) in Section 28 so as to preserve the jurisdiction or' the Supreme Court, the Labour Courts Industrial Tribunals and, as we have already found the Authorities under the Payment of Wages Act which we have further found to be "cor- responding law" within ihe meaning of clause (b) of Section 28."
senior, would supersede him. None of the general category candidates have been promot- ed as Cook superseding workman. He urged with force that, Thakur was promoted under the Reserved quota as per the Rules and Regulations of Central Government, hence he cannot be compared with workman. It is submitted that workman was regularised w.e.f. 13-11-92 and that Thakur was direct recruited in the year 1990, therefore, from this point of view also Thakur is senior to workman. Workman admits that except Thakur none was made senior to him.
7. On going through the definition of work- man under section 2(s) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act in the light of the observations of Their Lordships of Apex Court it is apparent that Shri Joshi falls in the category of 'workman.' Consequently this tribunal has jurisdiction lo decide the reference. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
9. Workman in his cross-examination dtd. 1-12-99 admitted that except Thakur no body else junior to him was promoted as Cook. At this juncture the Learned Counsel Mr. Anchan urged that Thakur had filed false caste certificate. Except bare words nothing to show to that effect. From the documents on record, it is clear that Thakur comes from reserved category and that he was given pro- motion under the Reserved quota as per the Rules and Regulations of-Central Government. It is not that, cadidate from General Category, junior to Thakur was promoted. Further as seen from the record, Joshi's services were regularised in 1992 whereas Thakur was re- cruited as direct substitute Assistant Cook, therefore his Seniority would be counted iVohi the date of his recruitment, and from this point of view also, Joshi does not become senior to Thakur.
10. So far promotion is concerned as stated above, according to the management it is a matter of selection, and therefore merit counts. Admittedly workman was suspended and was reinstated by the Award dtd. 15-10-91. So far part of merit is concerned, the department can consider that aspect in the light of the record as a whole including C. R. Therefore hardly can be said that management was not justified in not giving seniority and promotion to workman..
/ SI 7 inviting attention of this Tribunal to the docu- ments tiled on record submitted that the order oi' transfer is an incident of Government ser- vice. Courts Tribunals are not expected to interdict the workman to administrative system unless transfer vitiates by malafides or viola- tion of statutory provisions. Workman was transferred from Mumbai to Pune on adminis- trative grounds, best known to the department.
was competent to transfer. The Learned Counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar urged with force that the issue of transler was agitaied before the Central Administrative Tribunal and there- after before Their Lordships of Bombay High Court and, therefore, that issue cannot be re- interated, before this Tribunal, inviting atten- tion also to the Written submissions (Exhibit- 20). The Learned Counsel Mr. Anchan con- tended that since the point as regards transfer was raised before the Assistant Labour Com- missioner (C) for conciliation Their Lordships did not deal that aspect and, therefore, this tribunal is competent to adjudicate that issue referred in schedule. On going through the record as a whole, and the peculiar circum- stances, looking to the aspect of transler in the light of the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play especially considering the re- port dtd. 19-8-96 the transfer order cannot be said to be justified and proper. ^
13. On going through the discussion supra and the record as whole it is thetrei'orc, clear that the management properly considered the Seniority and promotion of the workman Mr. Joshi and action to that effect of manage- ment is totally justified- However, action of the management in transfering workman Head Quarter to Division is not at all justifi- ed and- therefore, Issue No. 2 & 4 are is ans- wered accordingly. In view of this the follow- ing order is passed : —
ORDER
The tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the reference. Action of the management in not '.-riving proper seniority to Mr. Joshi is justified.
Action of the management in not .uiving promotion to Joshi Is justified. Action of the management trans- ferring workman Joshi from Head Quarters to Division is neither legal nor justified. The management is therefore, directed to givv* him Ori- ginal posting in Head QuarVr. C.S.T. Mumbai.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR. Presiding Officer 12. While considering the point of transfer: two things are necessary to be carefully seen. First, Whether the authority which transferred Joshi was competent to transfer him ? "and second Whether his transfer was with vindic- tive attitude". According to workman as stated above he cannot be transferred from H. Q. to Pune and that this authority is Chief Commercial Manager, Catering, CST and not Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. So far authority which transferred Joshi is concern- ed, Mr. Motwani disclosed that on adminis- trative reasons i.e. to utilise the services of workman in a better manner, he had issued transfer order on the report of Head Quarters, lie admits that workman was appointed by Chief Commercial Superintendent. He is un- aware on the transfer, suspension and reinstate- ment of workman. Since Mr. Motwani states that on the report of H. Q's he issued the transfer order the Learned Counsel Mr. Anchan submits, transfer order is malafide in view of the report filed with affidavit (Exhibit-1 1 ). Report of one (if the officers of the railway department dtd. 19-8-96 shows "Joshi had filed several court cases for pro- motion and overtime. Therefore he is sugges- ted to transfer him to Mumbai Division where he would lose T.A. of about Rs. 800-900 per month which would be a punishment."" Filing of cases to seek redress from the competent court| tribunal 'authority cannot be said to be act contrary to law. In this context, report dtd. 19-8-96 referred to above, itself speak the animus of the concerned authority who trans- ferred Joshi. Ft is in the evidence of Senior Personnel Officer Mr. Gurunasinghani that Joshi was appointed by the Head Quarters, Mumbai. Pune Division was not that time a Division. He pointed out that. Director RACL. Pune comes under the Railway Board. He is not aware on the rule by which Joshi was transferred from H. Q's to Bombay Divi- sion. Seniority list of workman was prepared bv Bombay Division, Noiiin<: to show thai the authorities which transferred workman7818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBT-R 10, 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923 [PAAT II—SEC. 3(n)]i New Delhi, the 4th December, 2001
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001
S.O. 352-1.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial SO. 3523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of. the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Lahour Court, Ajmcr as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to ihe management of Western Railway, Ajmer and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-12-2001,
[No. L-41012/lf>,2001-lR(B-l)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Oflicer
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Triluinal-1, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between UKJ employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India antl their workman, which wits received by the Central Government on 4-12-2001.
|No. L-12O]2/I32/9
ANNHXURI-
BEFORE nn; INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT
HYDERABAD
PKBSKNr :
Sri Syed Abdullah. B.S.C., B.L.,
Industrial TribunaU.
Dated : 7th day of November, 2001
l.D. No, 32 of 199?
BETWEEN
M. Chengiinna, Ex-Fmployee, State Bank of India, Kondur Branch, Cuddupah District.
, .. Petitioner
AND
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, S.B.I. Region IV, Zonal Office, Tirtipathi.
. . . , Respondent
APPEARANCES :
Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate fur the Petitioner.
Sri B. G. Kavinder Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by its letter No. L-I20l2/132/98-IR(B-I) dated 20-3-99 referred the dispute to this Tribunal under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for passing an award on the following issues.
"Whether the action of the management of Slate Bank of India. Tirupathi in dismissing tne Sri M. Cheganna, Ex-Clerk, Kodur Branch is justified ? If not lo what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. After appearance of the parties the woikman and the
management have filed their pleadings.
In the claim statement the workman had set out his case
and briefly stated the facts ure as under : —
The nefilioncr workman was anpointed ns Messeneer in tho respondents bunk at Konduui Branch nn -1-7-1974. Subse- quently w.e.f. 1-3-1984 he was also promoted considering his satisfactory services. Theie was no complaint or remark during hi.s service. While so, the Assistant General Manncer. kt-Qion-IV of Ihe brink in lik lelkr dated 7-10-I012 h;,d called for an e\plan.itk>n alleging ih.it Die woikmyn had 7819
( I ) Whether the evidence let in during domestic enquiry proceedings would establish the allegations of fraud and mis- appiopriiuion alleged against the woikimn coveied by the charge sheet dated 7-10-92. (2) Whether the punishment imposed discharging the workman from service is cithei proportionate or disproportionate under Section I 11 A) of the J.D. Act. In the final arguments, the domestic enquiry lecoids documents were maikcd as Hx. Ml to Ml3 by consent. The petitioner workman wanted to file the affidavits of some ol Ihc account holders und sought to be marked as Exhibits io disprove the allegations made in the charge. The living persons affidavits cannot be mr-.rked as exhibits so the same were rejected,
5. Hx. Ml is the charge sheet dated 7-10-92 in which i):e acts of omissions and commissions are nllnb'.ifcd to the effect that the workman had lorged the si\'na''ires of the account holdeis namely liswariuh, Y. Venkutasuliruniiiia, I1. Suhra- manyam, (J. Vcnkafasubbamma which is a gross misconduct as per Hanking rules. Ex. M2 is a "one line' explanation ot the workman denying the charges, Ex, Ml b ihc record pertaining to the domestic enquiry proceedings E.\. M4 is a day io day enquiry proceedings recorded by the i-n^uny officei Hx, M5 are the written objections that weie submitted hv tlie workman about evidence. Eix. Mh is the notice dated 29-4-9.5 issued by the disciplinary authoiity Io attend for the personal hearing, l.x. M7 is the proceedings of the disciplinary authority in lespeet of (he enquiry, the Ex. MK is the pro- ceedings rccoided by (he enquiry olliecr at the lime of enquiry, lix. M9 is the orders of (he appellate authoriry confirming Ihe punishment, l'x. M10 is the acknowledgement of the workman. Ex. MM is representation of die workman Ex. MI2 is Ihe order of punishment of discharge dt. 2(1-10-45 imposed hy the disciplinary authority. Ex. M13 is a final order of the appellate authority confirming the punishment.
78'0 flffi GAZ.h'1 li> ot JNU1A : Utx UiViB^K 2y, -iuui, I-AIJSA ". iyz^ [I-ART n—SEC. -nun lie made a fictitious entry in the i dative pass book by misappiopriated the amount.
3. That the Account Holder Sri P, Suhramunyam (Ac. 1], 1733) approached him on 21-8-1991 to prc- p-iro :i vouehei for crediting Rs. 700!) into his account which amount he received without making an enlry remitting the amount into hank and that a fictitious entry was made in the pins hook hy misappropriating the amount.
4. That Smt. G. Venkatasubbamma Account holder (0?/1(1771) Had uppro.ichcd him on 10-10-1991 to prepaid ii voucher for crediting Rs. 3000 into her account, which amount he had received without remitting the amount into bank account. He mis- appropriated the amount hy making fictitious entry Jn tliL i c l a l i ve p a ss h o o k,
9. For the above said charges the workman submitted Ex. Ml a one lir.cd explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Jo inquire into the matter, a regular enquiry was ordered by appointing an enquiry officer wlio conducted the enquiry on 23-2-93 onwards and thereafter recorded the statement and received documentary evidence.
10, During IITJ enquiry, through the Presenting Officer, the Management had produced a complaint letter given by Sri Kiwanah account holder No. 66/10931 and also produced the past, hook which were marked as Kx. PI and P2 for which no objection was raised by the defence. Another complaint given by Smt. Y. Vcnkatasubbamma Account holder 41/6784 and her pa-,s book were also got marked'as Ex. P3 and P4 similarly the complaint of Sri P. Subramaiiyam Account holder Ag. 11/1733 and pass book were got marked us l-,\. P5 and Ph. So also the complaint given by Smt. G. Venkaia- suhbamma Account holder 65/10771 and pass book" were got marked ns 1 x. P7 and P8.
11 After mm king the documents the Presenting Olllcer had produced the witnesses B. R, Naidu Branch Manager of Kodur bianch as witness No. 1, who confiimed that the account holder (-'•.wariah showed him Hx, PI in which the entry was made by the workman putting his initials on 5-12-90. The witness further stated that on 6-2-92 Smt. Vcnkalasuhbamma cave a complaint which ,is Ex. P4 and in the pass book cniry dated 25-7-91 was initialed by the work- man So also iisertained from the witness that Sri P. Subra- m.Tnynm pave Hx. P6 and asked to tell about the entry dated 2l-S-';i and the initials thereon, for which he positively stated Unit the workman had made the entry. He further stated that F\. P7 complaint was given by Smt. Vcnkatasubbamma pre- senting to him and that Fx. P8 dated 10-10-1991 was authenticated by the workman herein. Through the snid wit- ness the ledger sheets pertaining to the ,i"hov.: named 4 account holders were got marked as E:f. P9 to PI2 for which nc objection was put foith by the workman. In Ihc cross examination the w/lncss was suggested whether he is ac- quainted with the signatures of all tTie customers oi the bank for which the answer is that he may not be sure but with reference to specimen signatures of the account holders he cnuld identify the same. He further stated from his cxpeiicncc in the hank he could able to identify hand writing and signatures.
12. The presenting officer also produced the specimen signatures of the account holders which were marked as P.t PI3 to PI6.
13. The Presenting Officer introduced (inoilier witness T. K Rr.gh,.van (PW2) who had expressed that the knew the workman and abo identified the workman account holder Kswai iaii and he "/as asked to identify the hand writing ;n the pass books for which he expressed that he cannot con- firm the hand writing. No further evidence was made in for the Management.
14. The woikman had nol adduced any oral evidence and s'oiiulit permission to put forth statement in writins.
would try to disguise the Writing so that he may not be caught in future. He observed that strict pioor of evidence is not required in departmental inquiries as it depends on the .preponderance and probabilities. Hasing on the evidence available he found workman guilty of charge No. I. 16. Regarding Charge No. 2 his findings arc that the complainant need not Ii* examined when the manager who Iiad taken a complaint was examined and that the said witness had identified the initials of the entries, Second ciiatgc ha:-, held proved by Ihc enquiry olficer. It was observed lii.it there is a satisfactory documentary evidence coupled with the statement of PW1 about identification of the handwriting of the workman made in the entries. So found that charge No. 3 was held proved. So also with regard to charge No. 4 about icceiving payment of Rs, 3000 from G. Vcnkatasub- bamma Account holder 6.V 10771 and that a ficiitioir, entrv was made in the puss book. The H.O. hns accepted evidence of the bianch manager and the genuincss of the complain,, without the examination of the complainant.
17. A copy of the findings was sent to the woikman lor which he submitted his explanation to set aside the findings as there is no material against him in proof of the ^II.TK1-' 1 to 4 levelled against him. The management had issued a show cause notice 29-4-95 as to why the punishment of dis- charge from bank services should not be imposed against hrm, as per provisions under Section 521 (5) (e) of the SHASTR1 AWARD (Para 8.28). Followed by it the disciplinary authn- lity issued proceedings, and the workman was asked to appear before the authority. A personal hearing was given hy disci- plinary authority. The workman again -submitled his defence and pointed out imnrobabilities in the enquiry findings. l'inallv the disciplinary authority issued Ex. M9 order confirming the punishment discharging from bank service and advised him to prefer an appeal was forwarded. The Appellant authority also came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman are grave and since proved h* confirmed the punishment.
IS. In the defence taken up by the workman at no pmnt of time he pointed out that he was not the concerned cK'rl; of the Savings Bank Accotint who had received the payments fiom the 4 account holders at the hank as a clerk who Iiad deal with the savings bank account branch and received the payments on the relavant dates from the 4 POCOIIM holders. There is an ownererous responsibility on him to rebut the documental y evidence which stares at Iran which lie could not get over. When the entries are in black white in the handwrilin.ii of the workman on the relevant date* he was on duly dealing with the savings bank account he has res- ponsibility, to explain it. It is not a criminal case that burden will be on the prosecution and that he need not explain. When there is a prima facie case, showing evidence, the burden shifts on the workman who as a custodian of the records and trustee of payments to account for it. He failed to discharge the burden shifted on him. The suggestions made to the witness arc vague. PWI as a bianoh nr.inager under whom the woikman had worked lrudc it clear I he complaints and the entries made in the pass books.
7V I
h\- M7 Proceedings of the disciplinmy authority.
Ex. MR 20-6-95 Proceedings of the AGM 1 oyai'linL;
personal hearing.
Jr.x. M9 2O-IO-'J5 Order passed by the AGM Region JV and disciplinary authority having acknowledgement of (he workman.
l:\. M H> 25-10-95 letter of the Branch Manay-i tor- wardng the appeal grounds to the ACJM Reyion-IV and Disciplinary authority.
Ex. Mil 6-11-95 Appeal submitted by the wuikman to the Dy, General Manager and Appell:i!e Authority1 S.B.I. Zonal Office., Tirupallv.
l:.x. M!2 20-10-95 Copy of F.\. M9.
New Delhi, the 5tli December, 2001 S.O. 3525.—In pursuance ol' Section 17 of Ihc In- dustrial Dispute /'.ft, 1947 N4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby pullishxvs the avura of the Industrial Tribunal Koilam as shown in Ihc Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employee in relation to the management of Feeral Bank L'd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2001.
[No. L-120J2/158/96-1RrB-I) 1 A MY KUMAR, Desk OWeer ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAl
TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM (Dated, this the 30th day of October, 2001) PRESENT :
Sri P. V. Abraham.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO 1198 RETWFEN
MANAGEMENT:
The Chairman, Federal Bank Ltd., Alwave (By Sri V. Mathew Kadavnn, Ailvocf,- Trivandrum,)7 n '2 r im G A Z E T TE or-" T N D IA • D E ^ n i v m rR ; . o, M O I, F A U SA 8. 1 9 23 [ P A RT T I— S E C. 3 ( i i )i AND
WORKMAN
Sri D. Rajendran Pillai, Rama Maiuliran, Puthukuriehi P.O., Trivandrum.
(By Sri. M. S. Vijayaclundia Babu. Advocale. 1 rjvandrum).
AWARD
The Government of India a=. p* r Older No I- 12012) 158|9MR(B-1) dated 5-9-1997 referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
The issue referred for adjudication, is the following:
"Whether ih'e action oi Hie management of Fede- ral Bank Ltd,, Alwaye in dismissing Sri Rajendran Pillai, Clerk from service wx.f. 30-8-1995 is reasonable and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled ?"
bank tradulent entries in the records etc. I he charges levelled agaijftst him are not specific and are based on suimises and conjuncUue-: fhe charges are not denmte, The charges ar; vague and uncertain. The enquiry was conducted disregarding principles of nar tural justice and the findings are perverse. The alleged collusionn with other employees is not based on any evidence and Ihere is no evidence in the enquiry to prove the fradulent transactionsjmisappropria*ion^ etc. by the workman. The workman has to comply the directions of superior officers of the bank which re- sulted writing of remittance slip and calculation of rate of interest as part of the day to day work. There is no basis to presume that the workman had a;n interest or concern to regularise the misappropriations ad- mittedly done by others. The charges arc proved by the enquiry officer merely on the basis of interested testimony of the management witnesses and there are no independent witnesses. The workman is remaining unemployed since the date of dismissal and hence he is entitled for back wages for the period he was out of employment. Tt is further stated that the punish- ment of dismissal is highly grave and is not propor- tionate to the gravity of the allegations levelled against him. The prayer is for reinstatement in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attcn- dent benefits,
1. As per preliminary order dated 27-7-1999 my predecessor had found lhat the domestic enquiry was conducted properly in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the findings of the enquiry officer are valid and sustainable. The preliminary order mentioned above is extracted here under :
ORDER
The dismissal of Sr. L"). Rajendran P;llai, Clerk, from the service oft he management of Federal Bank Ltd. w.e.f. 30-8-1995, has resulted in this reference,
2. Sri. Rajendran Filial, the workman in this case, was dismissed by the management after accepting the enquiry finding rendered by an enquiry officer who conducted u\ domestic enquiry into five chaiges levelled against the workman as per ehargesheet dated 16-9-88 such as misappropriation oi money, manipulation of accounts, unauthorised withdrawal', of money, collu- sion with other employees of the Bank, fraud, cheating doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank etc. The contention of the workman is that the enquiry is vitiated as the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and not supported by legal evidence. He is therefore claiming reinstatement in service. On the other hand the management contends that there is no perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer and the findings are proper and valid. It is contended that their action is fully justified.
4, The contentions of the management are briefly as under : The workman had worked as a clerk during the period from 3-11-1976 to 26-9-1987 and during this period he was reported to have committed mis- appropriation|fradulent transactions in various ac- counts of the branch in collusion with some other employees of the branch. The modes opcrandi was that when customers came to deposit money into their accounts workman and/or his associates accepted money under the pretext of helping them for remitting the money and send them back after making the en- tries in their pass book evidencini; remittance. How- ever the workman and his associates did not remit the money to' the credit of the respectve accounts and misappropriated the same. Later when the ac- counts holders of these manipulated accounts came for withdrawing monev. the workman or his associates would either remit the money to the ac- counts to facilitate passing of the cheques or would pay it without rooting the cheques through the ac- counts by arranging money by oilier means. He had also misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,900 brought for remittance into one gold loan account of the branch that he made unauthorised withdrawals to the tune of Rs. 31.000 from three SB accounts that he remitted Rs. 46,840 in SB account of Smt. Ramia Kamal in order u> compensate the earlier misappropria- tion of Rs. 43.500 from the account bv another em- plnvre of the branch and to enable the customer to withdraw Rs. 78.000 from the account and that he posted hipher amounts as interest in the pass book of Smt. Ramla Kamal so as to conceal the mis.-imrro- pria,tion committed in the said account. He was placed under susoension and ^p cnouirv wns conducted in accordance with thr- rutee find uoholdimr the nrinci- nies of natural justice The enquiry officer found the workman 1 en- quiry report, the punishment of dismissal was 3. The workman has filed a detailed claim state- men* before this Tribunal in support of his case and the contends we briefly as under : The workman was a clerk in Ferumathura branch of the management bank. While working so his servio; had been dis- missed as per order dated 30-5-1995 which is irregu- lar and illegal. As per charaosheet dated KS-9-1988 the mainaetment levelled five charges against him. Though he had subm'ttcd explanation, the manage- ment ordered domestic enquiry and on the findings the disciplinary authority imposed the present punish- ment. The appeal filed bv the workman was also rejected. The charges levelled airains' the workman nuY'ijes nv'-appropriatian of money, manipulations in be records, collusion with other employees of the 7823
the charges levelled ajainst him in the chargeshcet were not specific or indefinite. That being the posi- tion the present contention on behalf of the workman regarding the alleged vagueness of Ihe charges can only be considered as an after thought and is liable' to be rejected.
7. The next point of atiack is that in charge num- bers 2, 3 and 4 there is no allegation of miry misappro- priation of money by the workman and the misappro- priation was alleged against oth,ir employees in the branch. Further :he allegation ngainst the workman under these charges is only collusion but the workman was punished for Ihe main misconduct of misappro- priation of money.lt is true that under charges 2 to 4 no allegation of misappropria ion of money is levelled r.l7?.in.c.i the workman. But the alienation of collu- sion with other employees who committed misappro- priat;on was specifically alleged and proved in the enquiry. Therefore the con'cnlion thot 'here was no allegation of misappropriation of money under these charges will not come to (he rescue of the workman. The chnrjps of misappropriation of money under charge No. 1 wan not proved against the workman. Misappropriation of Rs. '1,500 bv 'he workman alleped under dhanre No. 5 was admitted by h.'m and he had remitted the cunount. In the circumstances t;-e argu- ment that 'he workman is not guilty of the char"e of nrs?nnror"nation is devoid of merit.
- imposed. Specific acts of misdeeds reported to had ccmmjttcd by the workman were narra/ed in ibe chaigejhcct issued to him. which is proper, legal and valid und not based en surmises and conjunctures. Charges were specific and derinile. The workman was r e p r i n t ed in the enquiry by an Advocate of his choice a rJ ho was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his due. SasiainaUo evidence was adduced in the enquiry to prove tc charges against the work- man. Enquiry records revealed that the v/urkman had co'Judsd v.'iih s;ime cither employees of the branch in and In order < clerk r^nd his conten'ron that he had acted merely as per 'lie i n d u c- tions of his nupsriors has no subsVincc. Piecirjlmnrv act'on was initiated -isamst few employee:; of the bamk and Qr-me^fr; enquiries v/ere ordered against fhrm in April 1988 and the d^dpl-'nary action wa<; com- pfc ed in 1995. Independent and sufficient evidence have been adduced to prove the charges in the en- quiry. Ths findings of the cnqirry tM-irev arc lega1, proper and valid and there is no perversity as alleged. For the gross mfscond'tc'. proved in the enquiry the 'punishment cf dirraissal f.-om service '.v:;s imprscd on the w-rkman. I* is n-Cpsr and justified anJ'which is only pronor'ionore 10 ?Xz chafes proved against him. Financial institutions like banks cannot repose confi- dence and retain employees vho involved ;n misappro- priation of money and comnr^ed othe^ fraudulent '.ranst'ctions in the accounts. Therefore the claim of the workmpin for reinstaem.-nt docs not deserve any merits and is only to rejected.
5. Since the validity of the enquiry is under challenge that point was considered as a perclimimry i??ue. The enquiry officer won sr.anx'.v?'} as MWi .and the enquiry file coi'Thinm*', findings of he enquiry officer, cnqirry proceedings, statement of witnesses and connected documents have been marked as Ext. M l.
8, According to the learned counsel for the work- man the findings of the enquiry officer sire perverse and there are no' evidence to prove the charpes levelled ac?ains'' the workman in the enquiry. It is elso con- tended th?.i* there h no independent evidence but only the evidence of management persons who alone were examined in the enquiry. On a readme of the enquiry I'cpprt it is abanden:ly cier.r ihat the enquiry officer ruis analysed ths evidence let in on the side of the management under each charge separately and came to his" conclusion. With regard to the manipulations in the bank records, fraudulent transactions in some SB accounts in collusion with some other employees hive been proved by identification of the handwriting of the workman in the relevant registers, ft was also proved that the workman posted higher annnrts of interes' in the Pass Pook of customers so as to conceal the misappropriation committed in the said amount. The modus operand? adopted by the workman und his associated was clearly explained aid found by the enqu'rv officer with sup'portin,<" evidence documentary as v/ell as oral. There is sustainable evidence in the enquiry to prove the charges against the workman. It was found '.hat the relevant withdrawal forms docs not bear the signature of ths concerned account holders either on the face of the instrument as drawer of the instrumentations or on the reverse side of them as acknowledgement for having received the money which is evident thaft the customers would not have received money in respect of those instruments. The deposi- tions of witnesses recorded in the enquiry are suppor- ted by Pass Book, ledgers, vouchers, cheques, with- drawal forms eiz. which fa sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the workman. On the strength of this evidence the contention that no independent evi- dence has been let in by management does not deserve consideration. The evidence of wimrspe^ examined on the side of management clearly establishes the7824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] Document marked on the side of the Management.
Ex', Ml.—-Enquiry file containing, enquiry"pro- ceedings, findings, statement of witnesses and connected documents.
charges and merely because they aic employees of management theit evidence cannot be brushed aside particularly on the ground that there are nu reasons U> disbelieve or discredit ihi-l: testimonies. On going through the findings of the enquiry officer along wilh depositions of witnesses ai.d iloc&mcnts it is clear that there is> no perversity in thi findings of.ihe enquiry officer. On the other kind the iindinf;; rccroded by the enquiry olilcer lire based on lee.al evidence und are proper and valid.
New D^lhi, the 5th December, 2001
S.O. 352ft.-—In putsuance of Section 17 ot Ibe In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cental .Government hereby publishes tlie award ot the Tndustria! 1'ribunaI-I. Hyderabad as shown in ti;e Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of S'ate Bank of India and their workman, which was r;:c/vod by the Central Government on 4-12-2001.
[No. L-12U12/332/98-lR(B-I)], 9. There is yet another contention that the worker has to obey the instructions of his superior officers and he has only clischarare his duties as directed by the superiors, ft is aho contended that the usual practice in the bank is to write vouchers, withdrawal forms ctd. by the employees of the bank to help the customers and he has only done that and there was no fraudulent action against the interest of the h;mk. Ti, is stated ihi the written statement ot the management that the workman during 'he relevant time was havim; about fj4 years experiencp EI* clerk in the- bank and hence the contention that he had acted merely as per the instructions of his superiors has no sustance. II is also pert'nent to note tbnt the withdrawal forms p "epared by him did not bear the signatures of 'he recount holders either on the face of it or on ibe riverse ski? as token of havina received the cash which if- evident that ihe customer would nnt ha~re received monev. In the lipht of such sr?citic evidence the present con'ention that he wis only acting us per the instructions from th" sun?rinrs and hence he is inno- cent cannot stand for a moment and is only to be brushed aside.
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNHXURE
I3EFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAX-T AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
10. Theic is no allega'ion of anv irr;:inilarity in the enquiry. The workman was dulv represented t V :;:i <\dvec?ta of his own choice mid he was afforded '.\.v r.-iTe opportunities t.i par^c-'n??!- in the enquiry and to adduce evidence on his side. The enquiry was conducted fully in compliance with principles of natviral iustice.
Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tri-
bunal-L
Dated : 17th day of October, 200] 11. For the foregoine discussions. T hold tha' the enquirv was conduced tVilv n\ jcr.iiilir.rce wi'h princi- ples of natural justice and ihe findin?;: of the enquiry officer nre proper, valid a'v\ supported by legal evidence.
Industrial Dispute No. 25/1999
BETWEEN
D. S. Ravi Raj,
Luke View Colony,
Door' No, 25/1-977,
9th Lane, Podalafcur Road,
Nellore.
Petitioner 12. The charges found be proved against the workman were that he l.ad co;nrrii*t?d misappropria- tion. co]!ur!;<1 wi'h other cmplovees for commi;Mnt" misapj:ii'opriatinn, manipulatiiu) cf I'.cc.^mi; etc. Tlie C!UHT"'> ry-oved against the workman h ~;ery pruvJ and serious and the punishment of dismissal awarded tr> the workman is proper'ioint"; to the misconduct proved flf.ainst him. In Ihe circumstances T hold 1hat the workman is not '.'lieible- for any relief.
AND
IV. Tn the result, an ".w;ird is passed holding that
State Bank of India,
the wojkimn is n?* j!:riW? tor nny rHiff.
ZonrJ Office,
P. V. ABR-XHAM, Industrial TriBuhal
Thirupathi.
, . Respondent.
APPEARANCES :
^Yiln^ss exp.iTVr.r.1 "n the s*de of the Management.
Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the MWl.—Sri C. Rechunand:v.:m,
Petitioner, Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate lor the Respondent.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by its letter No. L-12012/332/98/IR (B-I) dated 26-02-1999 referred the dispute to this Tribunal under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dis- putes ACL, 1947 for passing an award on the follow- ing issues :
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment of discharge from duty upon Sri D. S. Ravi Raj is legal and justified? If not, :o what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. After the appearance the parties have Filed Ihe'ir respective pleadings. In the claim statement the petitioner-workman has set out the faets cf Hie CUNC which is as under :—
That he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashicr in the respondent's Bank in 1980. During his service there were no complaints against him. While so, the Assistant General Manager, Region-II, of the respon- dent Bank issued separate letters dated 12-10-1993 and 30-8-1994 calling for explanation alleging thai he committed misconduct. In the first letter it was alleged that he encashed Savings Bank withdrawal for Rs. 10,000 purpoited to have been drawn from the savings bank account, No. 19/4082 of .Sri D. N. Swamidoss-. It was alleged that the depositors signa- ture was forged by the workman and he reedved pay- ment at Nellore town brancli. Further alleged that en 26-10-1990 the workman had received ,Rs. JOUO tendered by Shri G. Koteswar Rao for crediting in the Recurring Deposit Account No. 23/4340 viands in the name of Mrs. A. Paravathi at Nellore Branch and that he issued a counter foil for the amount but failed to account for the said amount into ihe bank. Also alleged that he made fictitious entry in the relative pass book of the depositors and got authenticated by a Supervising Official of the Branch. Thus he had mis- appropriated an amount of Rs. 1,000 received by him on 26-10-90.
3. Further alleged that he encashed the under men- tioned Savings Bank withdrawals at Nellore Branch purporled to have been drawn on S.B. Account No. L6/2007 of Kura. R. Sobha Rani.
Date of SB Withdrawal
Amount
Rs. 21-11-1988 • 26-11-1988' 29-11-1988 •
2,000 500 200 It was transpired that tie had forged the signature of a depositor on the Savings Bank withdiawal and received payments from the branch to have a wrongful gain.
4. Further it was reported thai on 3(5-7-1995 he had negotiated at Nellore Branch by withdrawing Rs. 200 from the Savings Bank A/c. from his A/e.
7825 S.35 at Maypaud Branch without keeping sufficient balance in his account. The D.D. was returned to the Nellore Branch as there was a balance of Rs. 11.20 only in his account.
5. Further il was reported that on 4-S-1993 he had negotiated at Nellore Branch, a Savings Bank withdrawal for Rs. 200 drawn against his Savings Bank Account No. S.35 without maintaining '•umcicnt balance in his account at Maypaud Branch.
6. Further reported that on 8-6-1993 he had nego- tiated at Nellore Branch Savings Bank for withdrawal of Rs. 100 drawn against his S.B. A/c. S.35 Maypaud Branch without maintaining sufficient balance in his account. Thus he had negotiated the withdrawals with- out keeping adequate funds in his account with deli- berate intention of gaining temporary use of bank's funds for his personal benefit.
7. Further reported that he had issued a Cheque bearing No. 186936 dated 29-9-93 for Rs. 1,400 favouring of M/s. Sri Sainath Financiers o'niwn on his S.B. Account at Nellore Branch iftid the same has been reported to the Bank of Baroda due to insuffi- cient balance in his account, which clearly shows lhat he was in the habit of issuing cheques without main- taining sufficient balance.
S. The alleged incident had taken place on 24th January, 1989, while so a show cause notice was issu- ed on 12-10-1993 in bad faith so as to implicate the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted without observ- ing the principles of natural justice. Inuring the enquiry the presenting officer did not produce any complain! given by ihe senders, muchless any instructions were issued by the Gerieral Manager. A copy of the repori submitted by the investigation oiricial was not given. No opportunity was given to cross-examine tiie exa- miner of the questioned documents. There arc no sig- natures on the back of the withdrawal slip and the person who signed on the reverse of th:; withdrawal slip he held responsible for the amounts. The alleged forged signature of the account holder D.N. Swamy- doss. who is no other than the Petitioner's father. The expert gave opinion thai. Ihe disputed signature was not a forged one. The account holder was also not examined during the enquiry.
9. It was also alleged that the workman had receiv- ed Rs. 1000 on 13-3-1994 from Sri P. YanaJabh who is a customer having Savings Bank Account Number 19/1663 and, he did not accounl frr the amount in the branch books. Further he made a credit entry for the amount in die pass; book of the customer with fictitious entry fur the amount in (he pass . book which came to light on 13-5-94 for which the wprkmun haJ prepared a voucher and remitted the amount to the customers account. •
,. lQ.Furtiier alleged that he received Rs. 200 on 21st \ .March, 1994 from Smt. Ramanamma Account No. I ATC. 6/947 and did not enter 'it in the books of , account. But he made an entry for Rs. 200 in the pass II book. The said ficiitious entry came to light on7816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2C01/FAUSA S. 1923 (PAR' , n —S EC 3(n)l on merits As per the p r c -v i i i o ns u n d a- p u ia
ic.zo v"jwe awazaea p u ^ .l e l ll by U ic w ay ot ^ puaaiy acuon, tr.e auwmy c o n^d s a au Ve into amount, me g.avny oi w 0 ^ ^^ l ne p i C V 1 0 US ALCUIU a any ux me M J^ ^ ^ ^e u u a L. aig eucuiunauces inaL I ' e x ul A lJ l C C u rU w as U l <"w b* D'e ax^P iiuaiy auuiGiuy wmui wM not
Cican ana tnere Vvc J vv, .. . >•£ no extenuating ureuinsi-aneey i ia niig lessei yj ^nisiiiueni. H ie w o i h i u an n au c i o ss
,.
cxmnuieu uie win1 , * .c^aa a na avaiieci t he oupoiLunuy so lie iiai no imtii '
° , <.o idnc up me laiiuo now, iiioie paru-
iiC
7827
amounts in tllie ledgers. The workman did not sub- mit reply to the charge sheets. However the work- man was defended in the domestic inquiry through the Union Secretary who is a staff member of the bank.
19. Ex. M7 is a record relating to enquiry pro- ceedings, winch contains the list of documents, re- lied and the number of witnesses examined during the enquiry. (
7828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 2y, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)]Branch for Rs. 10,000 c,f savings bank A|c No. 191 4082 (S N. Swumidoss) covered by Ex. PI in which the signature of the depositor was forged. The ex- port gave his opinion.
26. Similarly as cm 21-11-88, the workman had encashed Rs. 200 from the saving bank A|c 26|200O7 of Sobha Rani. Expert's opinion was relied. Sobha Rani gave a complaint. Her report was asked to bj produced by at the time of inquiry, but it could not be produced. It was alleged that workman was in the habit of withdrawing saving bank withdrawals without sufficient balance, while he worked at Mai- padu and Nellore Brunches. So ajso issued cheqees to financial corporation without there being balance in his saving bank Account No. 2|24. In proof of it Ex. P15, 17, 18, 16 were relied.
It was confirmed that Ex. PI 5, P17, 8 to 16 re- lates to charge No. IV. Ex. P17 to 20 relating to charge No. V. Ex. P2J, P27 and 17 relating to cilice No. VI. Ex. P24, P25, 26 and 27 relating to charge No. VII.
27. Charge No. 4
It is confirmed that the workman had sufficient balance on the date of purcha:,ing withdrawal from Nellore Branch (i.e. on 30-7-93) but he did not main- tain the balance till he received the instrument at Mypadu Branch (i.e. on 7-8-93), as a result of which the instrument was repurchased at Nellore Branch where jt was disposed off, by recovering the amount for him.
28. Charge No. 5 :
With reference to Ex. P17, 19 & 20, it was Con- firmed that the wbrkman had sufficient balance on the date of isfrue of withdrawal i.e., 4-8-93, so also on the date of receipt of instrument at Mypadu branch on 26-8-93 but he did not maintain the same balance continuing it in between 5-8-93 to 20-8-93.
29. Charge No. 6 :
With reference to Ex. F17, P2J. P22 it was spoken that he had sufficient balance on the date of receipt of instrument at Mypadu branch i.e. on 26-8-93, bui he did not maintain sufficient balance in ibis saving bank Account at Mypadu Branch on the date of repurchase of the instrument on 6-8-93 at Nellore branch- There was no sufficient funds in his saving bank account of Mypadu branch till 20-8-93.
30 Charge No. 7 :
Relied on Ex. P24, P25, P26 and P27 to prove that he did not maintain sufficient balance as on 29-9-93 and 1-10-93, so the cheques of Bank of Baroda, Nellore were returned with remarks of in- sufficient funds.
31. The workman's statement was also-recorded by tlhe- Enquiry Officer (Vide pages 18, 19 and 20) of Ex. H7.' The workman had denied the signatures in Ex. No. 5 but he admitted his signature in Ex. No. 9. According to him he was threatened with dire consequences so he remitted the amount co- vered by Ex. No. 9 and signed it.
32. Besides the above seven charges, the workman was issued with Ex. M2 charge siheet in which the charges arc :—
(a) ft is- alleged that the charged employee had received an amount of Rs. 1000/- on 13-3-94 from Shri P. Yanudabh, a custo- mer maintaining savings bank Account No. 9/1663 and did not account for the amount in the Branch Books. However you made a credit entry for Rs. 1000/- in the pass book of the customer. When the above fictitious entry in tlhe customer's pass book has come to light on 13-5-94, you prepared a voucher, and remitted the amount to the said customer's account.
(b) It is alleged that the charged employee had received an amount of Rs. 200|- on 21-3-94, from Smt. S. Ramanumrna A borrower haying account No. ATL 6/G 43, and did not account for the amount in the Brartdh books. Howevo: you tnat'i a credit entry for Rs. 200/- in the pass 1- ,± of the customer. When the above fictitious en- try in the customers pass book lias come to light on 17-6-94. You prepared a credit voucher and remitted the amount to the said Customer's account.
(c) It is alleged that the charge! employee had received an amount of Rs. ]000|- on 10-4-94, from Shri N. Subbaiah, a custo- mer maintaining Savings Bank Account No. 12|2313, and did not account for tlhe amount in the Branch books. However you made a credit entry for Rs. 10001- in the pass book of the customer. When the above fictitious entry in the customer's pass book has come to light on 17-6-94, you prepared a credit voucher and remitted the amount to the ''aid customer's account.
(d) It is alleged that the charged cmpiovcc had. received an amount of Rs, 1850|- on 9-5-1994 from Shri B. Nnnisai'ah, a custo- mer maintaining Savings Brink Account No. 21233 and did not account for the amount in the branch books. However ynu mad'; a credit entry for Rs. I850[- in the pass book of the customer. When the fictitious entry in the customer's pass book has come to light on 11-5-94, you prepared a credit voucher, and remitted the amount to the said customer's account.
(e)l It is further reported that the charged em- ployee had misused the D. D. Pur~ha^ facility by negotiating savings bank with- drawals without maintaining sufficient balance in your Savings Bank Account maintained at Mypadu Branch. Parti- culars in respect of two such instances are fu,rnishcd below : Tt is thus alleged *hat you have negotiated
7829
were written on the scrolls and in the cash pass books by the workman which he neither disputed nor de- nied. In fact the same were handled by the workman in the transactions. One of the Branch Manager G. Ramakrishna also gave evidence and confirmed that Ex. 1, 4, 7 and 10 are in the hand writing of the workman herein, which were entered on 2-5T94, 26-3-94, 10-4-97, 23-3-94 respectively. He also confirmed that the deposit vouchers of Ex. 2, 5, 8. were prepared by the Head Clerk by name MunJi Mohan Rao and the credit voucher Ex. M il dated 1J-5-94 bears the signature of the workman. In the cross examination he was asked to confirm the hand writing of Ex. 7 and Ex. 1 and 7 relating to the en- tries and he said it cannot do so.
35. Murali Mohan Rao was examined as witness and he was asked to confirm about the four vouchers Ex. 2, 5, 8 and 11 for which his answer is that he do not remember it and identify the signatures. His version is that the same seems to be that of the work- man herein. No cross examination was done to this witness. Another witness M. Sultan, Clerk-cum- Cashicr was also examined who confirmed about the remittance of the amount covered by Ex. 2, 5, 8 and 11 but he said he cannot recollect. Who gave it to him.
7830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2C01/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J4. S.B.I. Vs. TARUNKUMAR BANERjEB
2000 L.L.Ii. PAGE 1274.
"Once act of misappropriation is proved there is no question of imposing lesser punishment".
41. It has ben held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in J . O. JAIN Vs. SBI AIR J982 page 673 that there is no necessity to examine the co-iiplaiiunt when there v/as an admission by the er- ring emp.ovee about the transactions and the bank s'.iif have corroborated the fads. The documents Ex. Wl to W4 re:ied by the workman to show that account holders supported that they never gave araouu'.s as alleged would speak of tampering of evi- dence and tuto/sd to speak in his favour. Undoubte- dly they were won over. It is an after thought to get over the situation and to wriggle out of the circum- stances. In a decision reported in it was held that domestic enquiry proceedings are neither civil or proceedings in which strict principles of evidence need not be follows:! to cali for expert tender him iz: cross examination by the delinquent.
has urged that oral evidence is of no signi- ficance when there is a documentary evidence, more particularly
Ex. W3—Letter given by Smt, Shecram Ramanamma. • • '• •
Ex. W4—Letter given by Smt. M. Dhanamraa.
Ex, W5—Letter given by Smt. ,R. Shobha Rani.
Documents marked for the Respondent :
Ex. Ml 12-10-93—Show Cause notice issued to petitioner to initiate disciplinary action. rEx. M2 3-8-94—Show Cause notice issued to petitioner to initiate disciplinary action.
Ex, M3 16-10-95—Presenting Officers written brief in the enquiry for the letter dated 12-10-93.
Ex. M4 16-10-95—Presenting Officer's written brief for the letter dated 3?8-94.
Ex. M5 18-12-95—Letter submitted by the Defence Counsel enclosing the defence brief to Ex. Ml.
Ex. M6—Written brief submitted by the defence '"' F "Counsel for Ex. M2.
Ex. M7—.Enquiry Proceedings (xerox copy).
Ex. M8 27-12-95—Findings of the enquiry offi- cer on E*. Ml. ;
Ex. M9 27-12-95—Finding? of the enquiry officer ori.Ex. M2. ' v Ex. M10 5-8-96—Notice of intimation of Per- ' sortal heading.
Ex. Mil 5:8-96—Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority.
Ex. M12 2-9-96—Memorandum issued to the workman-enclosing the order of the Disci- plinary Authority.
Ex. M13 20-12-96—Letter of the Branch Mana- ger SBI, Mypadu forwarding the appeal grounds of the workman to the appellate authority.
Ex. M14 10-3-97—Le^er pf the Deputy Gene- ral Manager enclosing the order of the Apj"ellate Authority in'the case of D; S. Ravi Raj, workman.
7831 .New Delhi, the 6th December, 2001 S.O. 3527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishesrjthe award of the Central Government Latiour (^ourt, Ernakulam as Shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute . between the employers in relation to the management of Federal Bank, Limited and their workman, whjph was received by .this Central Government on 5-12-2001.
[No. L-120l2/251/94.IR(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(In the Labour Court, Ernakulam) (Tuesday, the 6th day of November, 2001) PRESENT :
Smt. N. Thulasi Bai, B.A. LL.B.. Presiding Officer, Industrial Dispute No. 6|l996 (Central)
BETWEEN
The Chairman, Federal Bank, Limited, Always.
AND
The workman of the above concern represented by Sri. K. N. Levin Kumar, Pallathur parambu, Mulavukad, P.O. Poggikkara, Pln^82504. '-" : '
KEPRESENTATI9NS : Sri B. S. Krishnana Associates, Advocates, > • ' t Marriam Road, Ernakulam. .. Foi Manage- ment.
Sri. C. Anil Kumar, >A
.. For Workman.
AWAT£> This reference was made by the Central Govern- ment as per Order No. L-12012I251|94-IR (B-I) dated 26-3-1996. The dispute is between the Mana- gement of MJs. JFederal Bank .Limited and their work- man Sri, Ki N. ttivih Kuinar. The dispute referred is :—
"Whether the action of the management of Mfs". Federal Baltic Ltd., AlwaVfc in termi- nating the service of Sri K. N. Levin Kumar, Casual Labourer of tfieir Ernaku- larri North Branch w^e.f." 23-1H993 on completion of 85 days service is Justified When the casual yfitfancy continues to be there ? If not, to'what relief the workman is entitled ?lr
2. On receipt of notices issued from this court both the management and workman appeared .through their respective counsel. W6rktttan filed a. claim 3054 Ql/lW—19%i2 THE GAZETTE. OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA S. 1523 [ F A RI I I — S E C. 3(ii)] statement raising his claims for which the manage- ment fikd a written statement. -No rejoinder was filed and th? C'I-.C v./as p-iiclogforadducing evidence by the workman. In spite of repeated chances the workman has not turned up to addU'cc evidence. His enunsel submiited lh;it lie has no instructions from the workman. Under the above c'rcim'.tnncss I am satisfied that the workman has no interest for prose- cuting the reference thereby it can be fntfnd irnt fher^ ex'sts nn raiding dispute between the parties to the referenc.
In the result. *.n award is passed finding that there exists no dispute between the parties at present to be resolved t h ^u -1i court as per reference.
Ernakulam, T>:tcd : 6-11-2001.
N. THULASl BAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001 SO. 2528.—Tn r.-rmrintx- of Section 17 cf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centn'l Goverimcnl ln- 'iu.itrni Tribn^al-arvi-Lsronr Court Miinitai, No. 2 a", sho'.vn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the rran- Inyers in relation tn th^ management of Regional Piovkk-nt f r rd C'"T".imi "'uii;r oritl thdr workman, which "/;r rer:ivcii I".- the Central Government on 3-12-2001.
I'No. L-4201I|34|95-IR(DUM KTJLDIP RAF VERMA, Desk Offlcrr
ANNEXURK
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OOVPRNMPNT INDUST'MAT TRIBUNAL NO. n, MUMBAI
[''^••SJINT :
S. N. Saundp.nkar, Presiding Officer.
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2|33 of 1996 I'MPIOYFHS IN RET A^TON TO THF f^MNAOFMFNT OT' REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COV, MISSIONF.R (Tl MAIRRASTITRA AND GOA REGION C|o Shri G.S. K.ubal, T-14, Vrindiivan Chambers, Patto, Panjim, Goa-403001.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer ; Shri R. K. Shctty, Advocate. For the Workmen : In Person.
Mumbai, dated 5th October, 2001
AWARD-PART-I
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-42011|34|95-lR(DU), da led 27-6-96, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section (2A) pf Seclion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have lt-Icrred the following dispute to this Tribunal for a^juJ'c.tion.
"Wheiher ifie iiclion of Hie Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1) Maharashtra and Ooa r:::;.on, Bombay and the Regional Provident Fund Com- miinioner, Sub-DIvlt.oiial Office, Panjim, Goa in dismissing th? services of Shri G.S. Kubal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
C ' P VR Of ^ f , ^t^ l ' • . • '^ 7 " ' , - 'vi c" p . id t > "i f i n d i n gs a re p e r v e r s e. (2) T!if Rcii.ir'v,| prf-i'i.l""( Fiin.1 rnmT7v<-,.;;t.ivi<>r Snh- Regional Office, 5th Floor, Junta House Annexe, P.ir.i;i Gna-403001.
3. The man-ipcment if'listed the claim of Kubnl bv filing *h"!r VVitfn St">'-mti\t fPyhibit-4 and 71. It is thrir con- trr;;i^n Hn+ Mr. f^iVI V/"i ^rc^nn sijocrviso'", since 19-11-',M. Mr MI-"S '.rrTvi'-'rirT <\-n ,v r,ri; of cl^rl;B. H^ was recommend- 'Hff J-r,- •• r\f aff,f^ for s--i"rfioi hv intT^'™^. H.-; "'"? writ'njr cnnfld'-nti?>1 renorts of the clerks working under him. As ror tu" dntff,; hr, ,vis p - - ^ ^ ^ ;^ rs^pnnjibi? for Ihf Ht"ni,"inJ o* worV ii mnVk pnrf r.{pr;PT1f rniaper Hii t n ^i p.-v ",r^ T>.S, T, ;no p.M ivhich is much moro than the 7833
holding the supervisory post and was drawing pay or Rs. 3,i00 per month, whxh is much more than the salary! wages Rs. 1,600 par month which the workman draws, covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. Noron- ha Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide his affidavit by way of Examinatlon-in-Chicf (Exhibit-16) pointed out that, duties and responsibilities of Shri Kubal as stated in para. 53 of Chapter-IJI of the Employees Provident Fund Manual of Accounting Procedure (Vol. 1) and that on pciusal of ihe same duties, it is ciystel clear that those are predominantly supervisory and therefore he is not a 'workman' under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, consequently this tribunal lias no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant reference. As against this, Shri Kubal contended that, section supervisor does the same work that of head, clerk, and that only name is changed without any benefit'or powers. Hs submils that though the manual shows the head clerk as doing the distribution of work in reality, the same v.-ork' is tei'ig done by the Commissioner by issu- ance of periodical .office-orders. He does not have powers to issue memo and|or to. calf for my explanation from any staff, ncr 's1 Crrtfjisted w'ih the powers to withdraw any material/ ftatiorirry under' his s'.gna'ur.cs. He submits that his perform- ance was controlled and subject to review by the Commis- rioner d'.vctiy pnd therefore he is-not an admm'.sttator/super- visor or manager and therefore he falls in the category of 'workman' under the Act. ' . .
6. Kubal admits in his cross-exaniiaation para 30, that his fotil salary Bt the time of 'his dismissal was Rs. 3.246 vide (Ex!i:bil-16|4) and further agrees* the duties performed by him vide (Exhibi,t-16|pg. 8). At the same time, Mr. Noronna, Regional Provident Fund Commissipner vide h's.cross-exami- riptior^- para 25\admits ' that the person appointed, in the capacity of he^d e'erkjsection supervisor, has -to' perform .all duties as IJ.D.C. and that t.p.C's, U.D.C's/.and non- f anctioria!. 4iead clerks do identical jobs when he is 'posted as a Head Clerk. He further admits that,' section supervisor is nothing but a Head Clerk and that Head- Clerk cannot sanction fi5y money or withdraw the money. In Para 27 he admits, Herd Cfcrk is not sanctioning .authority of the leave of junior clerks, but, ho recommends the' same, and that officer incharge' make posting of clerks including*Head Clerks... •/ /
?.'In .<" fpr as deration of workman ;'ifi'def,ithe Act. The'r
Lordship of Si'prer.ie Court in S.K. Vertna Vs. Mahesh Chand- j-a and Ahr. 1983'LAB IC 1483' enlightened as under:
is c o n t e n d e d, v!r. Ku • !' ! ; " ! . • -• V Y1.- •! s i r o e r v i s or p e r f o r m] •
i ni ^ m i n i ' t r a t i j ' e / M a n . i P W i al a nd • u i n e r y K o r y . t - f r n c i i r ms SK
J O S-
i r tg n e e d l e ss l i t i g a t i o ns a r. ,• • f u r e s.
• •
'
• .
"$''
- •;••.. to* d%tide the reference? . . ', , ' .< Yes. "Thtre .appear te. "*" f* •" ' •• • ' ; • •' •' •• '•• i• .tions which MvcbecoiTu • ': !• - •-"-"•-.• ;•) ;•• : used by all employers, ••... .•••' :• ••::•;•',.• •.•.•,(!• corporations, . whenever, au ' .• •• ;«•'• '• /• • • \ -.••.• i\ to a tribu- nal for adjudicai'on.' One objection is: that there is no industry, a second that there is no industrial dis- pute anft...the third, that the workman" is no work- raa?- It is. a piiy that when the Central Government, i'n all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute -for 'ad- iud'eption, a public sector corporation which is an • Instrumentality of the Stats instead oi welcoming a decision by .tfee Tribunal son tee'rsts so as to absolve iiself of any charge of .-being a bad employer or of victimisation etc. sa~r?d ••f?T-.-; ',> i,".{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}.';*.• '."ecisioAr .-on merrts by rafslng • .::> <». ;.-, , ):••; ,-;• I a;-*.:: therer ••HT saVsScd, cdV^-y ^.'' •.••:•:•. • • , : ••!.». '0 tf& .'Hish Court nnd to !•'•' ' .' • • • . :• • wasting .public- time and money. We expect public sector cor- porations to be model employers and model litigants. jWe'd.o.n©t expect'themtoavoid adjudication' or to ^indulgetoluxurieus litigation and drag workmen from court tp court merely to vindicate, not justice, .tut somerigid-"*technical stand . takent'up by them. We hope that Vnblic secto- ^"--——»=— '---•" <• —,ce. fo; ih refrnin from raising . • ;ht- fr; 2.'* Whether th« doiaastie,. iiifiiiryvwhioh wis{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} f;*:. '^ f{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}*:" ** heM ,,against the.-'"worker was-'against v'- '".»f*»'{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} •",~ O ne piiqciples, of,.Natu,ral -Kisfice? i ' '•' •"' t e V "' ~"*3. ^bp**"Tr tur- F»4{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}.-rSrif t^>.>•"":•• -. •• •.?.",• : ' •• '""" . 'ofB.-'r ,'!!;• ;!.:,io;v:-';.ii;! P(«» i?;;.v:d f ' •'''•«'^ 'v / O R' ' •' .' •..•;/ ; ••' *"«.' .V:' Doas^ot SUlrvive.^" -^ ;-;tr " '.;^^Asolko ,';:•,' " -, - w- ,5! AAflip *ir«fcpId*.'Ae'^contentfA'p? of tns ^ a n a g ^ ' n t- -is that Shri, KubaV-atf ^e 4tae of the'dismissal "was working.'as He?d _0er-V., . r ^ - : . - " - * ^- - ---i-.-tr> W r j w r ,' di-.cha^g- supervlgjfi.' :i i i r i T ?{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}! ,{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}^ '! •>:•'• 'funSbns. H e '. » . ^' II is tried to sjiyfhat Indh&irfal' Disputes Act Va legis- ktion, intended, to bring aboit "neace i-arid harrtiony between labour .'arc{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} ir-Tr-:. >\ '•:•>' U) ;;,i '••\. .': is thfVbfort: •• . ; .•• ir> :i • , :;• ;,-::.•••.••:, of ifldusiry.'-'.{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} . r • i-.' - •• 1 d'spute' etc. so as not to whiillq down, but to. advance the-object of the Act. Disputes between the forces{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}' #f labour and ↩
* -7834 t HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEd&MBER 29, 2001 /PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART if—SE£ 3 (10! Employer ttietejn was nyiu, ^ "vn Tyvtwi"ti up^wuwivw he wds performing managerial|supervisory[aidmini3trativei dutiet.
mnnnwWcnt aye not be excluded from the ;op£ration^ of the Act by giving narrow and restricted meanings to expressions ,in" tne Act. The Parliament could.. ne\er be credited with .the intention o£ Wepta*. put of the purview of the legislation small bands ox employees who though Wt on the. managerial s-de of the establishment, ire yet to be denlfcd the. ordinary rights qf the ft"tcc" of labour for , noi apparent reason af all. In wbrkmen of Indian Stand- ards Institution AIR, 1976 SC 145; 1876 2 SCJL 118; (1976 LAB IC 137) this court has occasion to point out :
. . . .. It is necessary to renfflttoet that the Industrial
1,1. In the ?ase onhaad^if we: g o ^ r o u gh the tomioft*/* duties performed • *y.,,K,ut"l in the light of; the,vadmission*^ referred to above in para, 6 of judgement, giving anxious though to the observations, mado by tneir L o r d ^ p s, m case, S.K, Verma. referred to above, and the observations made by Their Lordships of Supreme Court jn S,K,. Maini Vs. Mis. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. and Ors. 1994 II LLJ pg., 11H, wherer in it is pointed ,out, that designation of the employee it not of much importance. What is important is the ivatyre of ^Uh"", the defermin^ive f"ctor is/the predominant dfltieslmaimiilltl*1 and not some work as incidentally done, and in - that light, question is required to be determined with reference to, the facts and circumstances- Q( the case material- q n' record; On going thropgh the circumstances on record and *hc declsionsv I am of the opinion that Shri Kubal Head CJerk redesignated as secriQn supervisor falls within the definition of 'workman' undi* Section 2fs),of the Indiistrial Disputes Act and there- fore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the reference. Issues No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Disputes Act, 1947 is a legislation intended to bring about piace and harmony between management and labour in an 'industry! so that, production does not suffer and at the same time,, labour is not exploited and discofitertded^ aM therefore* the Jests nmst.be so applied, as to grv" (he wida" -pQWible, connotation to the term 'industry!. Whenever a question arises whether a particular, concern.is. an 'industry', .the, approach, muit be , broad. and liberal and not fiqid or doctrinaire. We cannot forget that it is a special welfare legislation we. are interpreting and we mu$t place such an interpretation as would advance the., object and purpose of the legislation and give full meaning and effect to it in the achievement o* its avowed social objective."
So we adopt a. pragmatic^ and not a pedantic tpprpuch,
forgottion that in & large majority of cases employees are likely to be ignored and so it is necessary to expose, fhem to the risk of cross-examination. It is not that workman did.not complain to this effect. It is to bf noted that work-, man as stated above is the elected General Secretary of the union since 1984. Had hv not pbjected -victe hk written submh-; sion referred to above dated 22-11-1993 (Ex-16/7),niaitcr, would have been different. As seen from the contention of workman that he wo,* not given o^porttwiityto e*amme-.b4m- self, can certainly said that Principles of Natural Justice were not followed,
14, Further on perusal .of the entire inquiry proceedings1 it is seeh, on suspending the_workman and others on,29-6-93 chargesheet was given, which was rttplied by him on 5-7-93 and that inquiry was initially fixed on 21-7-93 and thereafter telegraphically he was apprised to attend the inqu'ry on the next date i.e. on 22-7-93 in the office at Head Quarter, Goa and on the next date i.e, -21-7-W it was concluded. However, it is surprising to note that, the Presenting Officer submitted his summation on -20-9-93 and the workman on 22-11-93 and that inquiry report was completed pn 7-1-94. At this juncture, the submission of workman that inquiry was hurried- ly done finds substance, When summation was allowed to be filed on 20-9-93 and 22-11-93. the inquiry officer could have given chance to enablt the workman to lead his evi- dence and thereafter to cross-examine, for, a fair,; trial, how- ever, that is wanting and this, to my view, occasions pre- judice to workman.
15. It is to be noted that the workman had assailed the order of dismissal by Appeal dated 19-5-97 and the appeal was decided against him on 27-4-98, i.e. during the pendency of this reference. The delay in deciding the appeal as above and the discussion supra, it is apparent that Principles of Natural Justice were not followed and therefore, the inquiry vitiates. Since the inquiry was not properly held and conse- quently vitiates there is no need to consider the point of perversity of findings as held by His Lordship of Bombay High Coun, in CST Mumbaj Vs., Ranjan Kumar Mohfclflc reported in 2000 TJ CLR 117, Consequently Issue No. 2 is. answered in the affirmative and issue No.-. 3 does not survive, therefore the following order is passed:
ORtlfeR
The Tribunal has Jurisdiction to decide the reference. The, domestic inquiry conducted against the work- man was not as per the principles of Natural Jus- tfc". Management to lead evidence to justify its action.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer
7J35 Parent Teacher s Association, Kendriya Vidyalaya and their workman, which vas received by the Central Government on 3-12-2001.
[No. L-42012/193/99-IR;(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(IN THE LABOUR COUttT, ERNAKULAM) (Wednesday, the 26th day of September, 2001) PRESENT:
Smt. N., Thulasi Bai, B.A. LLB., Presiding Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 312000 (Central)
BETWEEN
The Secretary. Parent Teacher'^ Association, KendViya Vidyalaya, Kadavanthaira, Ernaku- lam.
AND
The workman q-f the above conceal represented^ by the General- Secretary Private Motor Thoihilah: Union, T. U. House, C.S. Road, Cochin-682011.
AWARD
7836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 20O1/PAUSA 8. 1923 [PART II—SEC 3,(ii)]House, C.S. Road, Cochin to be adjudicated by this court.
Ernakulam,
26-9-2001.
N. THULASI BA1, Presiding Officer.
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2001
J
if S.O. 3530.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri R. G. Sahu, Under Secretary (in-situ), Ministry of Labour as Protector of- Emigrants-^I, Mumbai with effect from 1st November, 2001 (F.N.).
[No. S-11011/l/2000(Emig).]
S. V. KRISHNAN, Under Secjj.
New Delhi, the 19th DcccmberJv2001 S.O. 3531.—In oxercise of |he powers, cjcmlerrea by Section 3, Sub-Section (fy offW#mi$ratW Act," 1983 (31 of 1983), the Central-Govc^mmeW,hereby appoints Shri K. Sudhakaran, Section Officev^dkiis- try of Power as .Protector of Emigrants-^, Thiru-* vananthapuram with effect from 12th December, 2001 (A.N.).
[^e.£-H011/l/20qC[(Eni#)
S. V. KRISftNAN? tinder Secy.
Sew Delhi, the l<^h December, 2001 S&. 3532.-^In exercise! of the powers confj^rred by Siftlrsectjon j(3) of Section 1 of tjie Emplojloes' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 194$), the Central Government hereby appoints "the 1st January, 2002 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which ha,ve already been brought tfnto force)- and Chapter Y't into force] of the said^ Act shall come into force in the following aicas in the State of Kcrila, namelv :—
1. "ChungaLhara, .Auuirambalam, Irumbuzhi, Aiia-kkayam in Ernad Taluk of.Malappuxam , i District."
• i, t "Kodi;r kjifi Kuttippurahi in Tirur T-luk cf, MalappOram District".'
[No. S-380J3/26/2001TSS.-I]
K. C. JAINj Director 7837
India Security Press, Nasik Road which is covered by item 12 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Dispxites Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility si rvice for the purposes of th" said Act;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 of tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months.
New Delhi, the 21st December, 2001
[F. No. S-11017/18/97-IR (PL>] S.O. 3533.—Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires thet the
H. C GUPTA, Dy. Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Govt, of India Press, Ring Road, Mew Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2002