77 H

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2001

S.O. 3489.—Whereas, by a notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, number S. O. 2363 dated the 4th September

2001, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter

referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the

land, specified in the Scheduled appended to that

notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport

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

1 Kullhe

Survey/Oat No

152/A1

152/A2/2

152/A/2/1

1.12/2/1

152/13/1

152/H/2

152/A/2/2

145

Can lr.«ck

144

14.1

Knnoli Nullii

1.14/1

1.14/2

138/13/4

13X/H/.1

1.18 A

Cart Truck

1.17/1

137/2

Road ODR-102

6/11

Drain

7/2/1

7/2/2

7/1-3

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

.VI

Mts

01)

.10

3864 GI/2001—3

7714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Namo or Village

1. Kuhhe

2. Mandal

Survey/Oat No.

7/1-2

7/1

Drain

(•2/2

62/4

62/3

Cart Track

72/1

72/2

73/1/1

73/1/2

73/1/3

73/2

73/3/1

73/3/2

73/3/3

Drain

Road. VR.124

71/1

74/2

74/3

74/4

74/5

Canal

Drain

83/1

83/2

Drain

87/1

87/2

87/3/1

83/A

83/B

104

103

102/11/2

102/11/1

102/10

102/8

102/7

102/6/4

102/5/3

102/6/2

112/1

112/2

112/3

112/4

Hec-

tares

Area

Arc

Sq.

Mu.

Nanw of Village

2. Mattditl

3. BorltUhd

4. Borkund (Ratanpura)

Survey/Oat No.

113/1

Road VR-149

116/1

116/2

116/3

116/4

116/5

118 ft.

Zodga Borkund Road

135

Drain

134

Drain

120/1

120/2

120/3

121/1

121/2

Cart Track

212

211

210

214/1

214/2 A

214/2B

213/A/l/l

215/A/U/l/l

215/A/1/2

215/131/2

215/AU/l/l

215/B/1F

Bori River

231

247

246/1

246/2

Road

245/1A

245/113

245/2

282 11.

Road. Sit-15

281/2B

281/2C

281/2

Cart Track

285/2

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts.

7715

Namo of Village

4. Borkund (Ratanpura)

J. Dondvad

Survey/Gut No.

286

River

614

613

612/3

612/4

Roa4,VR-155

617

619

607

606/1

606/2

CartTraok

603/1

604

603/2

Road, ODR-105

628

Drain

602/1

602/2

602/3

Drain

629

380

59/2

65/1

65/2

65/3

Canal

67/1

67/2

71/1

71/2

71/3

71/4

70/1

70/2

72/1

72/2/1

72/2/2

72/2/3

72/2/4

72/2/J

72/3

72/4

72/5

72/6

Drain

Hec-

Uro*

ATM

Are

Sq.

Mt*.

Name of Village

5. Dondvad

6. Vinchur Budmk

Survey/Oat No.

92/1

92/2

95/1 A/1

95/1 A/2

95/1B

93/2

93/3

95/4

80/2/A-l

80/1A./1

Drain

82/1A

82/1B

82/2

Cart Track

109/1/1

109/1/2

109/1/3

109/1/4

97/1

97/2A

97/2B/1

97/2B/2

Canal

98/1/1

98/1/2

98/2/1

98/2/2

100/1

100/2

100/3

101/1A

101/1B/1

101/1B/2

101/lC/l

101/1/2

101/1D

101/1A

Drain

S,H. 211

102/1/1A

Drain

Hec-

tarei

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts.

7716

TTIF. GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923

\PAKT Q—SEC. 3(ii)l

Name of Village

7. Shirud

Survcy/Uat No

Cart Track

791/1

7° 1/2

790/1

790/2

790/3

790/4

7X9

Cart Track

78K/1

7X8/11)

788/1C

788/2/2

8O5/1A

805/1U

8O5/2A

805/2B

Drain

Dram

Drain

772/1

772/2

X21

Drain

Cart Truck

X22/1

822/2

825/1

825/2

825/3

825/4

825/5

8.19/1

8.19/2

Road VIM 18

8.18/3

840/1

840/2

840/3

Drain

8.17

Railway

Cart Truck

842/1A

842/1 H

X42/2

Drain

55/1

5 5'2

Drain

44/1

44/2

44/3

44/4

44/5

44/6

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts.

Name of Village

X, Visrani;

9 VolhancDk

Survey/Gal No.

54/1

54/2

54/3

RoadODR-113

53/1

53/2

6S/1A

65/1B

65/2

66/1

66/2

66/3

Drain

71/1

71/2B

68/1A

Att/1 11

0(1/ 1 |J

68/2A

68/2B

68/2C

6R/3

Drain

78/1A

78/1B

Cart Track

906

77/1

77/2

77/3

130/2

130/3

130/4

Cart Track

I>rain

57/2/1

57/3

Shirud Vinrane Road

49/1

49/2

48/1

48/2

48/3

360

326

324

327

Drain

323/1

.121/2

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq.

Mis.

7717

Name of Village

9. Velhane BK

10. Tanda Kundanc

Survey/Gata No.

Drain

322/1

Road, MDR-43

293/1/1

293/1/2

294/1

294/2

294 Pt.

303/2/1

303/2/2

303/2/3

303/2/4

Drain

304/1

304/2

306/1

306/2

306/3

306/4

307

Cart Track

XX Pi.

Cart Track

Drain

74/1

74/2

74 Pi.

RoadODR-112

15/1

15/2

14/1

14/2

14/3

14/4

Drain

12/1

12/2

Drain

Cart Track

47/1

47/2

Drain

67/1

67/2

67/3

67/4

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts.

Name of Village

10. Tanda Kundane

11 Anchadc

Survey/GaU No.

Drain

Drain

72/2

Canal

74/1

74/2

75 Pt.

Drain

109/1/1

109/1/2

109/2

109/1/3

Drain

108/1

108/2

107

104

Drain

103

102/1

Drain

84 Pt

84 Pt.

Drain

Road MDR-43

81/1

. 81/2

77/1/1

77/1/2

77/2

77/3

74/1

74/2

76/1

76/2

76/3

76/4

71/1

71/2

70/1

70/2

Drain

Hec-

tare*

Area

Are

Sq.

Mt».

7718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMHHR 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923

|I'A*I II -Si-e 3(n)|

Name of Village

11. Anchado

12. Vajirkhede

13. Chinchkhede

14. Amdad

Survcy/Gata No.

Drain

Cart Track

33/1

33/2

30/1

30/2

Drain

Road MDIM2

Drain

48/1

48/2-1

48/2B

48/3

49/1

49/2

30/1

50/2

Drain

Cart Track

61/1

61/2

61/3

62/1A

62/1B

RoadODR-110

63/1

63/4

Cart Truck

64/1A

67/1A

67/1A-2

Drain

25/1-1A

25/1-1B/1A

25/1-1B/1B

25/2A-1A

25/2B

25/2A/2

25/1-1C

25/3

25/2 A/IB

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq,

Mm.

Name ol" Village

15. Bhirdhone

16. Mukti

17. Kasvihir

18. Nsndale Khurd

Survey/Gala No.

Drain

Cart Track

75/1 n

78/1

78/2

Drain

224/1

224/2

l>rain

231

232/1

233/1

234/1A

2J4/1C

234/ID/! A

234/2

260/1

260/2/2

260/2/3

260/2/4

261

Drain

262

Road, VR-23

43/1-1

43/1-2

41/1-3

43/1-4

43/1-5

43/2-1

43/2-2

43/2-3

43/2-1

43/2-5

56/1

J6/2

NH-6

51/1/1

j 1/ J.

49/1

49/2

52/1

52/2

52/3

53/1

53/2

53/3

IlLf-

Ijlrcs

Area

Arc

Sq.

Mis.

7719

Name of Village

19.NagaonKhurd

Survey/Gal a No.

40/1-1

40/1-2

40/I/3A

40/2

30/1

30/2

30/3

30/4

N.H. 6 Road

71/1

71/2

71/3

71/4/1

71/4/2

71/3

72/1

72/2/1

Cart Track

82/1

82/2

83/1

83/2

83/3/1

83/3/2

83/3/4

Road, VR-73

Kanh«ri River

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

7/1

7/2A

7/3

6/1A

6/1 B-l

6/1B-1

6/1/C

6/1/D2

Hec-

tarcj

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts.

Name of Village

19. NogaonKhurd

20. Amhodc

21. Salamc

Survey/Oata No.

6/1D1

6/2

6/3/1

Drain

441/1

441/2

441/3

442

449/1

449/2

449/3/1

449/3/2

463

462/1

462/2

462/3

Drain

466/1

466/2A

466/2B

Car Track

Drain

474/1

474/2A

474/2B

474/2C

Drain

Dram

475/1

475/2

484/1

484/2A

484/2D

Drain

476

Drain

395

Drain

396

397

398/1

398/2

39X/3

39K/4

398/3

399

400

Road, VR-30

171/1

171/2

Road

Drain

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts

[

•

—

(

)

]

Name of Village

21. Salarnc—Contd.

22. Mnhndi (1'ra Dungan)

Survey/Oal No.

173

172/1

172/2

Drain

174

217

216

Curl Track

167

Drain

Road, VR-130

16ft

153

Drain

154

Cart Track

152

Curt Track

214' 1A

2142

214 11)

213,1

213 2

R™d. ODR-92

76 1

76 2

7K 1

78 2

]>rnin

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

C\irt Track

Drain

165 1

165:2

Hec-

tares

Area

Are

Sq.

Mts.

Name of Village

22. Mohadi (Pra Dangai)

Survey/Oai No

Drain

166/1

166/2

Cart Track

162/1

162/2

Cart Track

Drain

13O/A-1/2

Cart Track

128

129/1

129/2

Drain

125

Drain

Mohadi Road

80/1

80/2/1

80/2/2

80/2/3

80/2/4

81/1

81/2

83/1

83/2

Drain

Cart Truck

72/2

Road. VR-43

70,1

70 2

60 1

60 2A

60'2n

Hec-

tarcs

Area

Arc

Sq.

Mts.

71 '

IK No R-31015/13/2001-OR-I1)

HARISII KUMAR, Under Sccy-

7726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA H. 1923

[PART II—See. 3{ii)]

Name of Village

Kslariya—Contd

2. Dhiunavad

Survey No.

180/1

180/2

180/3

180/4

180/5

180/6

180/7

180/8

88/379

88/378

87/1/1

87/1/2

87/1/3

87/2

90/1

90/2

96,97,99 (all

sub <livi no.

IO2(GCT)

109/1

109/2

109/3

108

107(OL)

106/1

103/1

103/2

229«;i.)

228/1

228/2

107

2IN

216

219/2

219/1

220/2/2

197/1

197/2

197/3

197/4

209

208

199/1

199/2

200

Aro» m Hectare

0.3967

0.0030

0.0309

0.1897

0.2112

00361

0.278ft

0.1033

0.0313

0.0800

0.1704

0,0151

067J7

0.0400

0 1200

0 1211

0.0792

0.0720

0.1528

0.3464

0.2124

0 2016

0.0216

0.01X0

0.0720

Name of Village

Dhamavad—Conld.

3. SavliaKhodi

Survey No.

202/2

lOl(OCT)

198 (O. Drain)

190/1

190/2

189

179 (O. Drain)

178/2

172/2/1

177(OL)

172/2/2

man

172/3/4

172/2/5

173/1

174

172/3

I6I(OL)

159/1

159/2

158

157(OL)

156

151

135

134

133/1

133/2

133/3

131/1

131/2

131/3

131/4

128/1

128/2

124/1

124/2

119

im/i, 116/1

118/2, 116/2

120/1

120/2

117/1/1

117/1/2

117/2

Area in Hectare

0.0108

0.0324

0.0046

0.0899

0.1030

0.3310

0.0360

0.0635

0.0864

0.0 ISO

0.0668

0.0693

0,0535

0.2424

0 2431

0.0216

0.0108

0.0136

0.1000

0.2800

0.0972

03731

0.7345

0.0808

0.0589

0.1964

0.2953

0.2710

0.1830

0.0020

0.2111

0.0798

0/1184

7727

NameofVHIaga

Savila Khedi-Contd

4. PipHyaTafa

3. RiqjIalJagir

Survey No.

114/1

114/2

114/3

114/4

114/3

113

110/1

110/2

no/3

110/4

104

99/1

99/2

99/3

100(O. Drain)

34/1

34/2

34/3/1

34/3/2

34/4

34/5/1

34/5/2

211,210(OCT)

203/1

20J/2

203/3

204

70(0, Drain)

102/1/1

102/1/2

102/2

102/3, 103, 104,

105. 106

109

101

100

Aram Hectare

0.2768

0.0144

0.3148

0.0876

0.1793

0.0207

0.0406

0.3183

0.1133

0.1246

0.1276

0.6236

from preview page

0.0837

0.0140

0.1260

0.2140

0.0476

0.0344

0.8339

0.1102

0.1131

0.1001

0.2423

0.1921

00846

0.0376

0,2430

Nut* of Village

6, Junbunii-Hap«

Survey No,

399

596/1/1

59671/2

396/1/3

3960/1

396/2/2

386

384

383/3/1

583/3/2

J82(GL&OCT)

370/1

370/2

371/1

371/2

372/1/1

572/1/2

572/2

333/1/1

553/1/2

353/2

354/1

554/2/1

554/2/2

550/1

350/2

551/1

351/2

551/3

162/1

162/2, 163/1/1

161

160/1

160/2

160/3

160/4

164

165/1/1

165/1/2

165/2

165/3

169/1/1

169/2/

169/1/1

169/2/3

Area in Hectare

0.0464

0.2599

0.4133

0.3336

0.1180

0.0498

0.3312

0.2592

0.1431

0.3708

0.1696

0.103$

0.0010

0.0504

0.3017

0.1370

0.1476

0.3001

0.4680

7728

Tin- GAZETTE OF INDIA . DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923

|P.\m II Srr 3(ii)|

Name of Village

Jamburdi-Hapsi—Contd.

7. Budhaniya

Survey No.

153/1/1

153/1/2

153/2

141/1/1

141/1/2

141/2/1

141/2/2

141/3/1

141/3/2

141/3/3

120

106(GL&OCT)

170/1

170/2

170/3

171 (Road)

172/1

172/2

172/3

173/1

175

409/1

397

396/1

396/2

387

385/1

384

362

52(OCT)

345

346/1

346/2

347/1

347/2

349

348

340/1

340/2

340/3

338

340/J

333/2, 334/2

323(OL)

Area in Hectare

0 3260

0.6872

0.0172

0.1388

0.3797

0.0531

0.2277

0.1634

0.5842

0 0064

0.1608

0.2056

0.1843

0.2197

0.0365

00101

0.0133

0.02J4

0.2702

0.1979

0.0398

0.2356

0.2528

0 1794

0.1866

0 1461

0.0032

0.0302

0.3886

0.0373

Name of Village

l'.iljkhcdi

Sur�\ No

90.3/3

90/2/2

90 2/1

90,1 2

90.1 '3

KK.'l

XX/2

K5 1,2(GCT)

ION

X7/1/1

86/1

86/2

87/1/2

72/2

X7/1/3/1

73/1/1

71/1/1/K

21/5

71/1/1KII

21/6

71/1, 71/2K

21/4

22/5

60/1

34/1/1/2

34/1/1/1

25/2/1

29/2

179/1

178/2

176

1X1 (O. Drain)

186

185

1X4/2/2

183

1X2/2,275

182/3

276

277(G. Dram)

278

Area in I L'Liarc

0.0300

0 3157

0.0311

0 1259

0 1251

0 143 1

0 0710

0 4619

0.1 1X0

0 1510

0 0065

0 3113

0,0022

0 2 11 X

0 23X5

0.0227

0 0036

0 0251

0 1095

0 2X30

0 0684

0.0020

0 0303

0 1220

0.1271

0 1055

0 0502

0.2014

0 (JOSS

0 01X0

0.2722

0.0546

0 0344

0.0010

0.1323

0 0115

0.1056

0.1290

0.0220

0.02X0

0 1179

0 3034

0 1330

0 0704

0.1290

0 0152

0.2030

77 ) <

New Delhi, the 21 si December, 2001

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 ;

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, 1962 (50 of 1962), the

Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right

of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said

Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which 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).

SCHEDULE

Tehnil: Thikri District: Badwani Stale : Madhya Pradesh

Name of Village

1. Jarvaya

2. Khedi

3. Thikri

Survey No.

186/3

190(Road)

217

222(OL)

220

208(Borad River)

33/2

32/1

28/3

28/4

24/1

24/3

24/4

24/5

24/6

24/2 (Canal)

12/1

12/2

12/3

Area in Hectare

0.1383

0.0377

0.1454

0.068J

0.0324

0.0954

0.6688

0.0722

0.0760

0.2166

0.2128

0.1140

0.1026

0.0114

0.3646

0 0304

0.1808

Name of Village

Tikri—Contd

4. Sherpura

3. Scgwal

Survey No

6/2

6/3

6/4

36/2

36/3/2

36/3/1

36/1

39 (O. Drain)

40,42

30/2

27/1

27/2

27/3

261 (G. Drain)

362

263/1

264/1

249/1/2

263/2,264/2(Cannn

265

266(GL)

267(Road)

268(Road)

269(koad)

272/l(OL)

272/2(OL)

280(OL)

281/1

282/2

282/1

282/2

287/3

284/2 K

284/2 KH

284/1 K

284/1 KH

286/1, 286/2

307/1/2

Area in HCCMI'I:

0 014.)

0 0791

0 0.116

0 2700

0.2132

0.0282

0.1296

0.3290

0.0K45

0 2305

0 2950

0 0543

0.0232

0 4176

0.3748

0.2792

6.0512

0.1584

0.0830

0.1512

0.1080

0.0960

0.0288

0.0216

0 3816

0.1008

0.O216

0.0216

0.4320

00216

0.2232

0.1440

0.1872

0.0648

0.1440

0.2260

0.0720

/M4

urn i m ^ t i i t u r INUIA : ubct-Mj^JiK ^y, ^UUI/I^JAUNA 8, ly^J

11^JAHT II—SEC. 3(II)|

Name of Village

Segwal—Contd.

6. Sirsala

Survey No.

342/1

.142/2

349(Pond)

35O(G.Drain)

347/1

346

360

359(Pond)

358(Pond)

341(I>ond)

361/1

361/2

361/3

340 (Pond)

.168/1

36X/2

337/1

337/2

335

334

336/l(Pond)

336/2

323/4

323/3

323/2

206

205(G. Drain)

204

203_

202(01,)

179/1

179/2

179/3

188

189

190

124,123)126

114/1/5

114/1/4

114/1/3

114/2

114/1

Area in Hectare

0.2088

0.1116

0.0144

0.2160

0.0288

0.1296

0.0216

0.0705

0.0760

0.2376

0.0576

0.0936

0.1080

0.1008

0 4392

0.1913

0.0144

0.13O1

0.1605

0.1585

0.0684

0.4983

0.0217

0.0430

0.3344

0.0015

0.0408

0.0680

0.0681

0.0804

Name of Village

Sirsala—Contd.

Khurampura

Survey No

114/2(Pond)

113(Nalional Highway

112(NationalIIighwa5

111 (National Highwa

109 (Pond)

108/2(G. Drain)

107/2(Pond)

106/2(Pond))

91/2(Pond)

90(I'ond)

l!9(Pond)

H6/1(Pond)

K6/2(Pond)

« 5/1 (Pond)

84/2(Po.id)

K3/l(Pond)

6 (Abadi)

11/1/1/1/1/1/1

11/1/1/1/1/1/2

11/1/1/1/1/1/3

11/1/1/1/1/2

11/1/1/1/3

11/1/4

11/1/1/1/1/5

11/1/1/1/1/6

11/1/1/1/1/7

11/1/1/1/2

11/1/2

11/1./1/3

11/1/1/5

11/1/1/6

11/1/1/7

11/1/1/8

11/1/1/2

11/2

Aroa in declare

0.1130

0 0210

0.0203

0.0643

0.0390

0.1018

0.1129

0 1480

0 0216

0.1440

0.0X64

0.3571

0 0473

0 0324

0.2209

0 4096

0 0684

0 0224

0.2490

1 1570

0 1396

0.1008

0.1440

0.0395

0.3449

7735

Nume of Village

Khurampura — Contd.

1 cm l.i

ninil.nm.i

l>,irv.ihi\

Survey No.

Area in Hectare

I(OL)

15,13/234.15/233

16/1/1(GL)

16/225

29,16/1/2

.10,16/1/3

51/11

j r i

51.2

51 2 1

51 .1/1

3.12

14N

324

323

115.316,3 IK

344.343

133(GI.)

14^ 1 14^ 2 1453

314.320

127.32X.322

140 i(c;i.)

l(,4

n>)

,HX

115.120 (IS DRAIN)

114

1 1 I(> 1 6 & (Jm. No)

•s 1.5 2

11X

146 10 1

146 5

14h (,

U(i 7

14li S

14(, 9

14d 10 2

145

342.3.3')

11X 1 I k . 33X 1 2

118 1 IK.11,338 2

138 1 H i

117

333 1

111 2

334 1

334 2

332

0.2277

0.3648

0.2707

0 3072

0.0180

0.0648

0 0684

0,0324

0(1425

0t)l4*

o:S5*

OD57A

0 in. I

0 0137

0 072(1

0 0X64

0,7252

0 7038

0 01X8

0 1512

0,1836

0 6.336

0 5128

0 0140

0 1404

0 1440

0 064X

0 0927

0 0X49

0 6326

0 1301

0 0071

0.4573

0 5197

0 5959

0 0357

0 3500

0 0370

0.1663

0.1593

0 0178

Name ol'Village

Barsalay - Contd.

Survey No.

320/1

320/2/5

320/3 K

320/3 KH

320/3 O

320/4

320/5

320/6

320/7

319

317

316/1

316/2

316/3

84/1

84/2

86/1

86/2

85 (OCT)

ll«,I19SubDiv No

121/2/1

134/1/1

134/1/2

134/2

134/3

143/3/1

143/2/3

143/4/1

143/2

144/Ho 144'11

172/1

172/2

173

1711

1712

I'M

200

2012,202

20.3

204 •

205/1'1,

205/2/2

205 2 1

24X

247i:i/1(Ci DrniiO

246

247,1/1/2

225'1

225,2,230/2

225/3

230/3

230 '6'2

230:9

230/1/1/4

230/1/1

2.11

Area in Hectare

0.4469

0 199';

0 3672

0.1663

0.0357

0 1499

0.0214

0 0499

1.2309

0 0713

0.3326

0.2784

0.3950

0 3672

0 0535

0 1570

0 0450

0.1178

0 0107

0 0554

0 7414

0,0762

0 0214

0 5783

0,0107

0,6068

0 1285

0 5069

[!•' No. R-31015/34 2001-OR-II]

HARISH KUMAR. Under Sew

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

Sordyapura

Survey No.

148/1

148/2

145

Area in

Hectare

0.2418

0,0071

Name of Village

Sordyapurn.—Cotrtd

Gallamahudi

Pirghati

Ambapurt

Adabarda

Survey No.

151

144

153

154

155

156

157

139 (GCT)

13S

134

133

132

12S

131/1

1.11/2

129/1

129/2

130

45(GL)

48 GL (Proposed Forest)

27 (River)

28 (River)

26/1

26/2

21/1

21/2

22(River)

15/1 K

15/1KH

15/1G

15/2

16(GCT)

4/2

3 (GCT)

13/1

13/2

14(OCT)

12 (O. Drain)

28 GL (Proposed Forest)

6/1

6/2

Area in

Hectare

0.0693

0.0940

0.1970

0.0850

0.2037

0.1006

0 1593

0.0424

0.0232

0.0814

0.0673

0.0591

0.0016

0.1195

0.0444

0.3034

0.0003

0.0570

0.1996

0.3065

0.0998

0.2851

0.0100

0,0600

0.1400

0.1922

0.0883

0.0525

0.2752

0.2026

0.0071

0.3086

0.0272

0.2439

0.0731

0.0072

0.0360

0.1764

0.0089

0.2448

7739

Name of Village

Adabarda—Contd.

Bhurakuva

Junidhal

Dhal

Jamanjhiri

Survey No

Area

21 OL (Proposed Forest)

25, 26, GI. (Proposed Forest)

1 (GCT)

17/1

17/2

3 (GCT)

23(GL)

2/1

2/2

46 OL (Proposed Forest)

36(0 Drain)

24(GL)

30,31 (AjnarRivor)

75 GL (Porposcd Forest)

J3 (DRAIN)

89 Gl .(Proposed Forest)

87 GL(Proposed Forest)

88 GUProposcd Forest)

83(NH3)

82(NII3)

81(NII3)

80(NH 3)

37 (River)

65/1

65/2

60/1

60/2

58/1

58/2

77/1

Hectare

0.1601

0.2952

0.1596

00516

0.2880

0.2004

0.0099

0.7182

0.0428

0.1069

0.2294

0.4706

0 0036

0.0125

0 2994

0.1241

0.3136

0.1925

0.0844

0.0174

0.0031

0.1366

0.0285

0 1497

0 2038

0.1525

0.0228

0.0397

0 0082

0.0214

0 0068

0.0055

0.0060

0.0214

0.1189

0 1925

0 2780

0.4063

0 3564

0 0071

0.0071

0.2067

0 143

Name of Village

Jamanjhiri—Contd

Jamanjhiri-fContd.)

10. Kiihbel

Survey No

77/2

77/3

88(PAIIAD)

82(PAHAD)

81(RIVliR)

85/1

85/2

85/3

85/4

85/5

85/6

16 (RIVER)

19/1

19/2

20 (O.DKAIN)

21/1

21/2

24/1

24/2

24/3

24/4

24/5

24/6

25/1

25/2

13/1

13/2

39/1

39/2

39/3

39/4

42/1

42/2

41(OI., ABADI)

44/1

44/2

40(GCT)

10/1

10/2

y/i

9/2

Area in

Hectare

0 1782

0 2366

0 1925

0.0642

0.0214

0 1853

0.0601

0.1525

0 0449

0.1829

0.2464

0.2484

0.0503

0,1476

0.0286

0.0053

0 2982

0.1080

0.0720

0 06 5 4

0.1558

0.0248

0 1078

0 0055

0 1493

0,0594

3854 GI/2001—7

7746

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

(iujan

Survey No

6X(C,CT)

(,7. 1

15J'5O(CiCT)

40-1

49/2

40 1

•IX

l'J(C;L'l')

10.1

10 2

0 4

Area in Hectare

0 0778

0 1160

0 1203

0.0.187

0.0071

0 29IX

0,0071

0 0249

0 3X4.1

0 0085

0 1065

0 0071

0.04X7

0 0.155

0 22.16

0 1040

0.0256

0 0071

0.12X2

Name of Village

Uujari—Contd.

2 Dehriya

3. Siraodiya

Survey No.

9/2

22(Karam Kiver)

23/1/1

23/1/2

23/2

23/3

29/5

29/4

29/3

30/1

30/2

30/3

29/1/1

29/1/2

29/2/3

20/2

20/1

l'J(CiCT)

351/1

351/2

351/3

.151/4

350

349 (C1I.)

347/1

347/2

347/3

347/4

347/5

347/6

379 (GL)

344,343

393 (GL)

394

337

33 X

332/1

332/2

332/3

331 (Ol.)

315/1 To315/14

314

313/1

.113/2

313/3

313/4

313/5

313/6

313/7

300

Area in Hectare

0 0221

0.4761

0.1529

0.203X

0 0125

0.1220

0 156X

0.0109

0.1273

0 1X97

0.1354

0.0551

0.0143

0.0429

0.2766

0.1320

0,1021

0.0214

0.4002

0 2650

0.1983

0 2403

0 2431

0 3190

0 0X2O

0.1308

0 0998

0.2279

0 0178

0.1997

0.1568

7747

Name oi Village

Sirsodiya -Conld

d'hiktyavad

Survey No.

294/1

294/2

294/3/1

294/3/2

294/3/3

294/3/4

294/3/5

288, 285,

286,287

284

283/479

2X0 (G Drain)

221

225

227/1

227/2

228/1

228/2

229

233,232

230

170/1/1

179/1/2

179/2

179/3

183

182/1 To 182/9

1X4 (OCT)

U.7

185,186,187

131/2

R2/2NH3

X2/1

74-1/1

75:1,75/2,

74/1/2, -76/],

75/3,74/1/3, 76/2

14(](Knnun River)

519

520/1

502/1

502/2

502/3

501

500

497

492

496

495

494 (OI,)

433 (O. Drum)

432«;L)

Area in I Iectaro

0.3350

0 1215

0.4178

0.0191

0.0334

0.1747

0.03J6

0.2160

0.1018

0 0456

0.0155

0.0006

0.1220

0.2621

0.1872

0 O53X

0.0467

0.1215

0 2583

0 0341

0 4472

0 0772

0 2355

0.0184

0 1675

0 1931

0 1404

0.1521

0.1170

0.1580

0 0819

0 0175

0 03X3

0 0X19

0.1580

0.0029

0.0356

Name of Village

3. Lodhipura

6. Dudhi

Survey No.

Xl/1

81/2

81.3

80 (O. Drain)

33 (GL)

30 (GL)

29/3

29/2

-8/1

8/2

8/3

8/4

8/5

1(NH3)

194/2

194/1

195/1/1

193/1/2

195/2

195/3

195/4

196/1

196/2

192

166(G. Drain)

126

125

124

123

122

120

117

72,71

76(GL)

78/1

7KOL)

Area in Hectare

0.3473

0.1584

0.0743

0 0.212

0.0036

0.3920

0.0642

0.1853

0.1150

0.1373

0.0247

0 0594

0.2428

0.1158

0.1809

0.0713

0.2171

0 0499

0.2922

0.1845

0.0724

0 0308

0 3635

0 0549

0 1003

0.0097

0.0688

0.0036

0 0242

0.04X5

0.1118

0.1624

0.0796

0.1069

0 1592

0.0307

0.0172

0 2496

0.1855

0.1573

0.0899

0 0990

774R

THE OAZETTE OK INDIA : DECEMBER 29. 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923

|l'Aifi II Sir Hii)|

Name ol'Village

——

• t

Dudhi Conld.

Akiarnkhurd

Survey No

20/2

29/1

29/2/1/2

29/1/1

26/3

28(NH3)

152(OL)

131/1

151/2

147

143/2(GL)

157

145/1(GL)

159/1

144/2 KH

144/1

144/2

144/3

126/3

135

128

134

129

132

131

121(GL)

133(G. Drain)

24/1

24/2

24/3

24/4

24/5

42/1A (Canal)

42/1B

42/2

Area in Hectare

0.1046

0.2615

0,2240

0.2061

0.0345

0.5438

0.0001

0.0512

0.0565

0 0239

0.4365

0.3758

0.1293

0.1872

0.0223

0.0035

0.4440

0.0051

0.0740

0.0363

0.1753

0.2192

0.0159

0.0002

0.0106

0 0715

0.0891

0.0221

0.0674

0.0906

0.0461

0.1123

0.4922

0.2649

0.0036

0.0764

0.1064

0.1969

0.1121

0.3772

0.0036

0.3788

0.0288

0.1725

Name of Village

Aklarakhur .1—Contd.

Ouljhari

Bikhrun

Survey No.

14/1

14/2

14/3

118/1.118/2

(Ciinal & CiCT)

102/1

102/2

101

105/1

105/2

I05/.1

106

100/1,47/1

85/1

83/2

85/3/1

85/3/2

65/1/1

63/1/2

65/1/3

65/2

65/3

65/4/1

65/4/2

65/3

119/96

34 (C)C'n

52/4

8/1

8/2

59/1/1

59/1/2

59/2

477/1/1

477/1/2

477/1/3

477/1/4

477/2/1

477/2/2

477/2/3

473/1

475/2

471,473/1

473/2

472

467, 469

Area in Hectare

0 0162

0 0238

0.3606

0.3560

0.0351

0.0352

0 1740

0 0806

0.3058

0.1872

0.1440

0,0720

0.1152

0.0288

0.4833

0.1683

0.1144

0.3102

0 1362

0.1980

0.1580

0.2360

0 2894

0.0936

0.2816

0.1350

0.2255

0.1704

0.3290

7749

Name of Village

Bikhrun—Contd.

Survey No.

465,466

462/1

462/2

462/3

462/4

462/5

489/1

489/2

434/1

454/2

490/1,490/2

(Canal & GCT)

453/1

4J3/2

451/1

451/2

450

455 (0. Drain)

449

414

415/1

415/2

420

419

356/1

424 (O. Drain)

355/1

355/2

355/3

355/4

354

344/1

344/2

346

347/1

1AH ft)

347/*

347/3/1

347/3/2

330/1,350/2

(Canal & GCT)

313/1

315/2

315/3

327

326

316/1

316/2

325/1

323/2

Area in Hectare

0.2843

0.1328

0.2880

0.1872

0.0216

0.2016

0.0438

0.1607

0.0338

0.0345

0.3888

0.0145

0/1320

0.3312

0.0176

0.0293

0.1944

0.1584

0.0432

0.1008

0.1075

0.0468

0.1404

0.0145

0.1149

0.0072

01194

0.1194

Name of Village

Uikhrun—Contd.

10.

KJifllkhurd

11. Sundrcl

12. Sala

Survey No.

324,323

321,320

322

250/1,250/2

(Canal & GCT)

258

257/1

257/2

256

255

212

236

235

217

224/1,224/2

(Cunal & CJCT)

41 (OL)

6(GI.)

72H

20/1/1K

20/1/1 KU

20/1/2

20/2

20/3

27/1/1.27/1/2K

27/1/2KI1

27/2/2,27/2/1

27/3

27/4

27/5

2N/3

2H/2

2X/1

12/1

12/2

Area in Hectare

0,0944

0 0651

0.0451

0.0259

0.1978

0.1364

0.1646

0 0755

0.0432

0.0838

0.0868

0.2252

0.0238

0.0515

0.0165

0.5434

0.0600

0.3160

0 2186

0.4271

0.2490

0 0040

0.4626

0.0447

0 0669

0.1931

0.1171

0.3X32

0.0036

0.5383

0 1943

0.1119

0.1914

0 0429

0.2435

7750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8, 1923

[PART D --St/\ 3(n)l

Name of Village

Snla—Could

13. I.unhcra

Survey No.

109.1

109/2

106/1

106/2

108

120(GCT)

105

K6/]

86/2

K6/3

280/74/3

Cuiml (280/74/2)

280/74/1

75/1/1

75/1/2,75/2

76/1/1

76/1/2

76/2

76/3

76/4

139(OCT)

162(River)

161/1/1(GI,)

154/1

154'2/1

154/2/2

153

151

152/1

152/2

14K(OL, Abadi)

150/1

150/2

135/1

135/2

140

102

137/1

137/2

139

138/1

Ivn

Area in Hectare

0.2347

0.1416

0.3429

0.2189

0.0210

0.0101

0.1058

0.3676

0.0506

0.1373

0.2938

0.0065

0.0288

0.3847

0.1922

0.1513

0.0810

0.0549

0.0804

03214

0.2192"

0.0573

0.0306

0.0369

0.0076

0 0082

(1.0039

0.0088

0.0036

0 0557

0.0308

00511

Name of Village

Ijiinhera—Conld.

14. Dugni

Survey No

119(OCT)

118/1,118/2

103

113/1

104

93(Road)

88/1,92

88/2

132

133

134

147

86 (GL)

85/2/2

256(GL)

•

258

257

254/1

254/2

234/3

234/4

251/1

246(0. Drain)

248 (G, Drum)

249 (GL)

247

243/1

243/2

242 (G. Drain)

24,1

230/1 (OL)

234

233 (G Drum)

232

22X

227

226

225 (G1.)

Area in Hectare

0.0438

0 1082

0.0121

0.1899

0 0771

0.0420

0 1007

0 2542

0 0036

0.0036

.00036

0.0036

0.2580

0.1737

0 0067

0.1051

0.4348

0 0977

0.0855

0.2673

0 1711

0 0143

0 0347

0 0143

0 1 568

0 1711

0 0198

0 3065

0.2281

0 1497

o oi n

0 1160

0 0966

0 0263

0.2069

O.O42X

|1^:. No. R-31015'35'2001-OR-1I|

HAUISIIKI'M �. Under Se^

7/51

MINISTRY

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.

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

Bank of India Staff Association

Bank of India

Jeewan Bima Building

The Mall Kanpur

And

Zonal Manager

Bank of India

Moliini Mcnsion

1 Naval Kishorc Road

Lucknow

Award

1. Central

Government,

Ministry

of Labour,

New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-12011/23/87-

D2(A) dated nil has referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal --

Whether the action ol the management of Bank

of India in not paying special allowance to the

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?"

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.

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.

5. Accordingly it is held that the wokmen are

not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the roferonct¹

made to this tribunal.

6. Reference is, therefore, decided accordingly.

R.P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

3S54 GI/2001—9

775¹

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

Setcion

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

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

Mrs. Parvcsh Mehta

Shivaji NangraU

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.

7753

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

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

Sec

7754

THE GAZETTE Ol^ INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 20O1/PAUSA S. 1^23

[PART H^-SEC. 3di)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.

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).

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

7755

New Delhi, the 29 November, 2001

S.O.

3497. -In

Pursuance of

Section

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.

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?"

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 anJ

7756

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.

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<Hh day of October 2001

For the Second Party

For the First Party

Shakar Devdare

[A. Bchakraborty) Chief Manager

Gen. Secicli'iy,

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

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.

3. The management in its written statement has

not denied that Tula Ram, the workman, was appo-

inted as Armed Guard in the bank or was posted at Na-

raich branch. Agra of the bank. At the time of his ap-

pointment in the bank, the workman, had submitted

an application dated 8-8-83 in which his educational

qualification was mentioned as 'High School¹ and the

same was duly noted in his service record. As per i ules.

mi employee pursuing studies after joining the bank

has to seek permission of the competent authority.

The workman obtained certificates of Madhyama

and Uttama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allaha-

bad and later, obtained M.A. degree in Hindi from

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Univcrsily,

It is pleaded by

the management that Madhyama & Uttama from

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are equivalent

to B.A. and B.A (Hons) respectively, only for tTie

purposes of equivalent Hindi B.A. and B.A. (Hons)

as has been clarified by the Govt, of India, Ministry

of Human Resource Development, Department of

Education.

The bank can not treat such qualification

as full-fledged decree and informed the workman

vide letter dt. 14-12-1995.

4. Later, the workman by his letter dated 9-9-95

sought permission from the bank to appear in the

M.A. examination of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University

on the basis of Madhyama & Uttama examination

passed by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allaha-

bad.

In reply, by its letter dated 18-11-1995, the

management informed him that as per bank records,

his educational qualification is high School hence

permission can not be granted to him for appearing

in M.A. examination.

Despite refusal of the bank

to grant permission to appear in M.A. examination,

the workman appeared in M.A, (Hindi) examina-

tion and obtained M.A.degree from Dr. B.R. Ambed-

kar University, Agra and intimated the bank about

the said fact, by letter dt. 2-1-1997. Thereafter, the

bank by its letter dt. 29-9-97, explained'informed

to him that 'Sahitya Ratna examination¹ conducted

by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent

to graduate for the purposes of knowledge of Hindi

and not for promotion, increments etc. hence in the

absence of graduate qualification, his M.A. quali-

fication can not be noted in his service record.

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

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.

7. The terms of reference is confined to action

of ;he management in not recording

educational

qualification M.A, (Hindi) in the service record of

the workman.

This reference does

not include

noting

other

qualifications

his

icrvicc

record.

This tribunal has to confine discussion

about

legality of

the act

of Hie management

in turning

down the request of the

workman

to record higher educational qualification, M.A.

(Hindi) which undisputedly was awarded to him

by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University.

8. As observed earlier, the passing of Madhyama

and

Uttama' examinations

from

Hindi

Sahitya

Sammelan,

Allahabad

and recognition

of these

certificates equivalent tt) B.A. and B.A. CHons)

Hindi

not

disputed.

The

manage nier

itself takes cognizance of this fact that the said

examinations were treated, equivalent to B.A. and

B.A.. (Hons) only for the purposes of proficeney in

Hindi Literature. Taking so, these proficency

Hindi literature are higher qualifications tha

'Hieh

School' and should have been noted in the service

record

of the workman,

Dr,

B. R.

Ambjdkar

University permitted the workman to tukv M.A

degree

Hindi .literature

treating

Madhvama

and Uttama examinations equivalent to graduate

degree.

It is notopja to the bank to decide r.s

which -tin; degree is B.A, or M.A. or wlviher

Dr.

B. R. Ambudkar

University rightly

Ireflted

Madhyama and

Uttama. examinations equivalent

77W

lTIE GAZirn'I; UP 1NDTA : DH^LMFIIZR ."?'». 20O1 ,'FAUSA o. 1923

[P.uu Jl—SLC. 3(ii 1

to 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

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

not

competent to take decision about equivalence of

any degree

but

such

right is vested

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

the

Central

Government

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

NO.

2/99

T PARTY

II PARTY

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,

(Advocate-P. Sawkar)

Ban galore- 560602

(Advocatc-G. Hegde)

AWARD

1. 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

7759

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.

The case of the first party in brief

is as

follows : -

5. The union

Vijaya

Bank

Employees

Federation has uiised

this dispute, First

party is a member of Schedule

Caste.

was appointed

as a

workman

discharge the dv.iiesof Peon w.e.f. 1-9-1995.

Hu was terminated w.e.f. 10-4-1997 and

this

amounts

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

follows

7. There is no relationship of master and

servant bjiWecn. the management and the

workman.

was

engaged

only

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

Supreme

Court

are

also

relied in the Counter.

Management for

these reasons and for some other reasons

has prayed to reject the reference.

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.

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

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

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

3854 GI/2001—10

77(,()

THE GA7LTTE OJ^: INDIA . DECF.MBEP V), 2001 ,'PAUSA 3, 1023

|PM;I IJ-Sj;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

(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

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

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.

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.

7761

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.

19. The learned counsel appearing for the first

party has relied the following decisions. :

M) 1984(2)SLR 359

(2) l984LablCNOC6

(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) J T 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)

(10) 200!(l)LLJ I33O(SC)

(11) 2000(11) LLJ 1367 (K;ir)

( 1 2 )

1099(11) L L J 155

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

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 Officer

7762

THE GAZETTE OF TNDlA : DECEMBFR 29, 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923

[PART Tl-Src. 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

K m 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.

Both the parties have filed documents.

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,

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.

Reference is answered accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

7765

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

03-12-2001.

No.L-12011/2X5/2000-1 R(B-I IV]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNF.XURF

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.

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 :

Sri V.V. Sidhartluin,

Advocate,

..I ,,, Mjn.Hvnu-nt

Ernakulam,

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 wcknu.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.

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

is no pending industrial dispute between the parties

io adjudicated by this eouiL

Ernakulam,

N. THULASI BAI, Presiding Officer

26-9-2001.

New Delhi, the03rd December, 2001

!\O. 3M"il- In

puiMianee

Section

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.

IN- i i.iiii.::; i -'5 iudi-Tl)""¹

C t.ANG.M'JIlAK' VTNJ Undei'Seey,

7704

mfe GAZETTE of¹ INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA S. 1923

IPART tl—Sec. 5(ii)j

ANNEXURE

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.

Sta^fe • Jhai khand

Industry : Banking-

Dated. Dhnnbad, the 29th Nov., 2001.

AWARD

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

"Whether the aelion of the management ol

Central Hunk of India, Patna in dismissing Sri

Bhola Safi, Peon Iroin service w.c.f. 12-11-93 is

lejii'l and juMificd¹.'

II not, what relief is the said

workman entitled tot"

In course of hearing ol the instant relerence

a petition filed by the nianagemen: dt. 26-7-2001 on

the ground of maintainability of reference ease was

taken up for hearing in presence of both sides.

course ol heJiing L:ained Advocate for the manage-

ment submitted that over the self same issue the

concerned workman preferred a Writ Petition before

the Hon'ble High Court, Patna.

Lenrned Aevoeate

submitted that Hon'ble High Court ul er hearing

both sides dismissed the Writ Petition filled by the

concerned workman with the

observation that the

petitioner it not entitled to get any reliel in the extra

ordinary jurisdiction nt this (_ouit undei Article 226

of the Constitution ol India.

H has been submitted

by the Learned Advocate for the management referr-

ing a decision repoitut in 24)0l)(S6)FLR 682 that the

concerned workman is debarred from agilating the

same issue again beloie other forum as the matter

hns aheady been decided by the Hon'ble High Court

in disposing of tho Wril !''(ii' .n.

In Ihe drcisinu

i eferrni to above 1 fis Loidslup ol the llo'i'hK- Delhi

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.

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 .

3. It is clear in view of the submission of both

sides

that during pendency ol the referune case the

concerned workman preferred a Writ Petition before

the Hon'ble High Court, Patna.

The order of the

Hon'ble High Court speaks clearly that the said Writ

Petition was heard on merit and dismissed.

If the

attitude ol the concerned workman is taken into

consideration it will be seen that he prelerrcd two

forum with a view to get his relief.

If the decision

of the Hoi;'b!e High Court, Delhi referred to above

is taken into consideration it will expose cleaily that

mote than one forum is available to challenge a

particular order and when he elects to choose one

forum, thereafter

he is precluded from

choosing

other forum for same cause of action.

On the ground

of doctirnc of election which is based on the maxim

"lhat a person cannot approbate or reprobate at the

same time". Therefore, if the decision of the Hon'ble

Court is taken into consideration there is sufficient

scope to say that the concerned workman is not

entitled to get previlege of another forum when he has

Jailed to get his relief from other forum.

Knowing

fully well of this fact the concerned workman when

failed to get rerief at one forum has come forward to

get his relief here,

Considering all the facts

and

circumstances,

I, therefore, hold that submission

L-Ktended I'V Ihe Learned Advocate for 1 he manage-

ment in view of the decision referred to above can

77'i5

not be ignored.

F, therefore, hold that the instant

case is not maintainable in the eye. of

law.

Award is passed accordingly.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Office i

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2001

S.O.350J.—In

pursuance

Section

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:

Bank ol Baroda Employees Union,

Khuiratabiui Bamcb,

Saifnb;:d, Hydeiabad

....Pciitionci¹

AND

The Region^' Manager,

Bank of Baroda Regional Office,

AP-I, Basheer Bagh,

Hyderabad

.. , . Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Shri K. Rama Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent : Shri T. Vishwanadha Saslry,

Advocate

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 elided irT'

2. The following c'a'm

statement wa^

li'ed

that Sri p. Ramaiah is work'ng wi<h the rc-porden'

Bank since 1979. The respondent bank charge

sheeted Sri P. Ramaiah Tor certain ;:'ky.d actions

and has awarded huge punishment.

He was charge

sheeted on 8-8-1997 of various charges like indccLiit

behaviour, willful >n 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

quashed

3. A counter was filed stating that the charges wcie

specific & an enquiry was

conducted.

Si¹ .P.

Ramaiah was given ample opportunity to put foi-

ward his case before the enquiry officer

The charges

were proved keeping in view ol the principle ot

natural justice. The petitioner is making lame excuse

to cover his lapse that reter to cash shortage

Rs. 26,000 but the linding of the Enquiry Officer is

not

perverse. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

4. This Tribunal by an order dated 28th August,

2001 held that the domestic enuqiry held is valid.

Once having held so, the on'y question that arises is

whether the punishment awarded is commensurate,

with the guilt of the petitioner. The Learned Counsel

for the petitioner argued that the petitioner i:-: still

continued as Chief Cashier. II really the Bank had

no confidence in the petitioner

then they

should

not have taken the work from him ol

Cashier.

Charges are framed against the employee, when <he

other Cashier had cash shortage.

So that

main

charge itself does not pertain to him.

The charge

sheet is not specific and totally vague. The Discipli-

nary Authority was determine to award a punishment

77;

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 <mc th^t this punishment is required

so that he will be carelul in future. However, with-

drawal of special allowance beyond a certain period

is not desirable because he is -iti'l discharging the

duties of the Mead Cashier.

Therelote, the reference

is oiderec! as follow¹-: 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.

Priding

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

29-11-2001.

[No. L-2OO3O/18/95 fR (C-l)

No.

1,-11012/1/97 IR (C-l)

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 -

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?"

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?"

"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?"

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 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.

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.

3854 GI/2001—U

7768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/FAUSA &. 1923

(.PART It-Sue. 3(ff)]

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.

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 rrd

(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,

Rom 1-3-89 to 8-6-90 ten sittings tooks place under

the first Enquiry Officer with j,o prefer. MunwrJk,

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

Irdia

znd

order clawed

20-12-89, further procccdir.es

were

sUycd.

FvirtuFlly. an

oidcr

wa^

prwed

15-11-^90 holdings thai

till

the

.statement

the petitioner

wns

recorded

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

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.

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

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 AJ. 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.

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

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.

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:

The II Party/Management (hereinafter refers

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.

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 to

7770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923

[PART U—SEC. 3 (if)]

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

;

•

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—

"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?"

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 :—

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.

7771

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

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.

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 that

7773

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : UEOfiMBER-39* 2QW/PAUSA 8. 1923

[PART It*-Steo, 3<tt)]

"it will be open to the Indian Airlines to proceed with

the departmental proceedings notwithstanding tbc

pendency of the criminal trial and notwithstanding

their earlier order dated 1541-90." From this it is

seen that in the guise of having taken steps before

the Courts, the Petitioner Mr., M. V. Anantha Subra-

manian was bent upon to drag on the proceedings

with all sorts of dilatory tactics. Ex Ml 1 is the xerox

copy of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority

stating that he is concurring with the findings of

Enquiry Officer and his report. Along with that

order, the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer

was enclosed and the Petitioner was asked to give

his reply for the proposed punishment on dismissal

from service without benefits in full. Ex.M 13- is the

xerox copy of the Approval Application filed by the

Management for passing an order to approve the

action taken against the Petitioner/Workman Sri

M,V. Anantha Subramanian by dimissing him from

service. In that petition, it is clearly awarded that

an enquiry into the charges was ordered and it was

conducted after giving adquate opportunity to the

opposite party in the enquiry and the opposite parly

attended

the

enquiry

and

the

Enquiry

Officer has

submittedhis

report

finding

the

opposite party gulity of the chargt and

the

competent

auhority

concurring

with • the

findings of the Enquiry Officer has issued a show

cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal

from service without benefits in full. The competent

authority after considering fully the submissions

made by the Petitioner Sri M.V. Anantha Subra-

manian passed an order dated 20-8-92 dismissing

him from service.

That order has been marked as

Ex. W2 (typed copy). Further, it is stated in that order

tha¹ Indian Airlines Management has passed an

order dismissing the Petitioner from service, in ac-

cordance with the Standing Order applicable to him.

A perusal of the exhibits filed on the side of the Ma-

nagement as well as the petitioners clearly show that

what it is alleged before the

National Tribunal,

Bombay in the Approval Application

the

Respondent/Management is correct. Ex. Ml5 is the

xerox copy of the letter dated 1st September, 1994

enclosing the copy of the order passed by the Na-

tional Tribunal, Bombay in the Approval Applica-

tions filed by the Indian Airlines Ltd. against all the

three Petitioners. All the contentions raised here

were raised before the National Tribunal also for

the stand of the Petitioners that the enquiry conducted

by the Management is not

fair and proper., In

that onjer itself, the Hon'ble Tribunal had come to

the conclusion that an enquiry was held into the

charges in accordance with the principles of natural

justice, equity and fair play and in accordance with

the, provisions of Standing Orders¹ applicable to

them. So, under such circumstances, it cannc-t be

said that the enquiry cbnducted by fhtf Ii Party/

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.

15. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry

Officer in his report, the Disciplinary Authorhy as

well as the Appellate Authority after perusing all the

materials and other circumstances like the reply givon

by these Petitioners has properly come to the conclu-

sion and has passed orders terminating the service of

the .Petitioners from the Respondent/Management/

Indian Airlines Ltd- Hence, it,can be concluded that

the action of the management of M/s. Irtdian Airlines

Ltd. Madras in terminating the services of the

Petitioners Sri M.V. Anantha Submnianian, Sri D,

7m-

;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

20-02-87 Xerox copy of the show cause notice.

20-08-92 Xe>ox copy of the dismissal order.

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

18-05-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceeding.

13-06-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry findings.

10-01-87 Xerox copy of the statement of Sri

J. Mohanraj Inspector of Police.

14-12-86 Xerox copy of the mabazar.

02-12-S6 Xerox copy of the airway bill.

Nil

Xerox copy of the transhipment cargo

Delivery challan.

12-12-86 Xerox copy of the air cargo tranfer

manifest.

14-12-86 Xerox copy of the cargo manifest.

20-02-87 Xerox copy of the chargeshcet.

M10 28-02-92 Xerox copy of the order of the Sup-

reme Court.

Mil 24rO6-92 Xerox copy of the latter from the

Manager.

Stores & Purchase slating

that he concurs with the findings of

Enquiry Officsr.

•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 rccdpis

77^4 •

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

5. It is seen, {ha: he managcmi'n: in ordtr

;^o

establish Inir claim examined one wines'-. On the

contrary "jvpite of giving several opportunities ihe

concerned workman did not cons kin necessary to

appear before the Tribunal with a view to establish

his Claim. MW-1 during his evidence disclosed that

the age of the conceived workman according to the

Form B Register was recorded us 1938. The Form

B Regis'?.r during evidence of MW-1 was market¹ ;'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.

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

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 :

"Th: 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 <C 1)1

S. S, GUPTA, Under Secy.

3854 GI/2001—12

777fi

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 2'), ?.001.'FAUSA S. 1923

[PARF II—SEC. 3fTT)J

ANNEXURE

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

Sri Vijoy Vishwakar

Sri Surssh Singh

4. Satrughan Vishwakar

5. Amar Nath Singh

Lakhan Prasad

Baikunth Saw

8. Fulchand Bhuiya

Rewati Singh

10. Vijoy Prasad

11.

Bilok Singh

Mihir Singh

13.

Mahendra Kr. Singh "No, II,

14. Sanjay

Kumar Singh.

15.

Vikram Vishwakarma.

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

7777

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.

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

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.

B.C.C. Ltd. and the demand of the sponsoring union

to regularise those persons in service of Bhalgora

Area, consequently, is not justified.

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.

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 wor^K

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.

It has been vehemently urged on behalf of

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 the

7778

JHE GAZETTE OF INDIA': DECF/MRER 2'9, 2001/FAUSA 8. 102?

|p A R l 1t-SFt\ 3(vO]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

has said that different collieries have their own Tyndal

Jamadars who do their duty in their colliery.

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

apparent that though he is

working

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

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.

The ne.tt vvitness on behalf

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

During his cross-examination he says that

the concerned workman were the

mazdoars

MiJndhata Singh, a contractor and further says that

out of them he can name only one

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.

From the statement of this

witness

also it is

apparent that like WW-1 he has made few state-

ments

ccMiiiaiy

su^rrenis made >n

the wriiien

staicmon'.,

though

like MW-I

does

not

say

that

the

concerned

workman

worked

for

three

years

but

according

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 his

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«<K by

this witness looses its signifies nee, rather it stands

falsified.

It can well be considered that in presence

of different Tyndi'l Jamador in different collieries how

a Tyndal Jamadar df one colliery can supervise the

work of workmen or deploy them to work in other

coWrcrics also with which he hn gat no concerned.

This apart, this witness has also accepted thv fact

that the concerned workman were the mazdoors of

Mandhatu Singh, a contractor

It is apparent out

of the above that this witness cannot be held to be

competent or reliable on the aspect that the concerned

workman were in fact the workman of the manogc-

ment and they all worked continously for a period of

two and half years or tor more than 190 days in one

calendar yeai as per the case of those workman.

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

Bunagarh colliery.. In

Form

' C

according

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

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

Simla!; hal

7780 -

m e 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 concerned workman himself he has made

few

statements which aio different

from the statements

given in their wiiitcn

statement.

Firstly he says

that he and others worked for three years and secondly

he has specified the period also by saying that

they

worked at Simlabahal colliery for

two and

half

years and then worked for 3/4 months at Hunalidih

and then worked for two months at Bynagarh col-

liery. Apart from this statement

reinj; ir.uj s^;t.irl

there is no any document also r/rcdi;ci.d ;<. ;i I: ; r-

tiato such claim.

Further his statement to the effect

that their work used to be supervised by the Engineer

fneharge ot Simlabahal colliery also stands contra-

dicted by WW-1 and WW-2 also who

have consis-

tently stated that the works of the concerned workman

were supervised by the

Janmadar, Hublal Prasad

(WW-I) in Simlabahal colliery. He has admitted the

lact he and others were being engaged by Mandhata

Singh, contractor and it is he who used to pay

wages

to them. Further, he has admitted'the fact that they

were not given the identity card-nor they

were mem-

bers of provident fund nor their names were cntcicd

iii Form "FV register of the col'iery.

Further it

goes

to notice that despite having worked in the concerned

collieries for three years a; per his case hv could not

give the name ot even a single competent authority

of the colliery wi'h whom he was supposed to have

direct concern during their working in the concerned

collieries.

It is obvious therefore that he has failed

to substantiate his claim that he and other workman

worked either continuously for a period of two and

half years or three years or for a period more than

190 days in one

calcndai year.

Further he could

not establish that besides having been engaged by

the contractor for al! practical purpose, in fact, they

were under the direct control and supervision of the

management and that the naturejsf work which they

did during the relevant period was necessarily of a

tyndalT

9. Now coming to the oral evidence

led

behalf of tho management it appears that MW-1

Ved Prakash Sharma, who claimed himself to

.working as Supei intending Engineer at present and

according to him he has been working since 4-11-86

in different collieries under Bhaigora area till date.

According to him he knew the contractor, Mandhata

Singh who used to be engaged for performing mis-

cellaneous and

temporaly

nature of job.

The

names ol the contractor's workman, according to him,

were not entered in Form 'H' or Form^kC registers

;

•

Further according to him, he and ollici authority

used to make payment to the contractor as per work

order and Ihey tiscd to make payment to the- workers

He has also said that k is not correct that ihc con-

cerned workman worked rej_ulaily from 1989 to 1992

for more tVwn 190 days in u year. According o him,

the concerned workman were sent ui diirgiound for

miscellaneous job, their attendances we; e marked in

Form 'C¹ register u: per piovisions of Mine;- Act and

safely equipment like, CLp lump, helmet etc. arc

supplied to such workman.

He has proved ihe work

sl+ps filed by the workmen which were marked Ext.

JV1-1 series on behalf of the management and about

them he says that the workmen worked for 61 days

as per work slips and those lelaeto the year 1991.

He has also said that the concerned workmen were

engaged for doing temporary nature of work

and

their claim is not justified,

In course of his cross-

examination he has said that he cannot say that

Mandhata Singh, contractor, was a registered eon-

tractor in that urea or not and also cannot say aboul

his licence.

He has also said that the work of the

workmen under ground was supervised by the contra-

ctor, Mandhata

Singh

and

his Munshi

and

1he ufficcrs

i f

:he

management

for

safty point of view. At

one

place

further

says (hat he cannot

say

as to

whether

any

lition) Act is maintained in the colliery or not. He

has denied the suggesiion that he has deposed fa I,s My

and deliberately to deprive the workmen from

th;ir

due demand.

Quite obviously during his entire cross-oxaniination

he does not appear to have said anything so as to

hold,him incompetent or unreliable and nothing he

has said which in any way eiiii support the claim

of the workmen in a substantial manner.

He is a

cumpeknt person also in the sense that he worked in

the concerned collieries all through the-

relevant

period as a responsible ofiice-r who used to engage

contractors for carrying out miscellaneous and tem-

porary nature of job.

He has emphatically denied

the claim oCtlu- workmen that they regularly worked

for more than 190 duy.-i in a year.

The second witness on behalf ol' the management

(MW-2) is a Senior

Pesonnel Ollicer working in

Hurralidih colliery since September, 1995 prior to

which he was working al Simlaba'hal colliery from

l-X-1987 fo September, 1995. He also claims to have

known

Mandhata

Singh, contractor,

who

was

working in the colliery and the woik was givL-n to

him by the Engineer of the colliery. The concerned

workmen, according to him, had no entry of thoir

names in the Identity Card or Form 'IV Register and

their attendance was marked by tlv: colliery stall'while

«oins underground. The payment, according lo him.

Was made IVom aica ollke ;md payment lo

woikeis

77R!

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

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

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

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 ue^jd basis for i\ specified

period and they were not working as tyndals fi<i

carrying or transporting heavy articles underground

or the surface and their works were not of permanent,

and perennial and regular nature,

Interestingly in

course of the argument by palacing reliance upon the

same documents it has been coin nded on bahalf of

the workmen that it is obvious thsre from that in

fact the concerned wojkmen were performing the job

of tynduls and were engaged for carrying hvavy

778 V

IHE GAZETTE OF INDTA : DECEMBER 29, P.Orti, PAUSA !i. 1923

[P.\n I I - S i r

3(ii)

materials, articles or equipments from one plate to

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

. 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,

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.

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.

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

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

77§3

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.

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 the

3854 GI/2001—13

7784

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 justed ? 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

-7785

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.

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

; 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; 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<p of joining.

A ,sj>"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,

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

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

7™

r H E QAZfetTEp^PggA_; P&CEMBfiR 29, 2001/FAUSA ft. 1923

[PART II-SEC. 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 :

It in not disputed that in tic appointment letter

issued to the employees at the time of joining, a

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

7789

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

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

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 the

7792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAU5A 8. 1923

[PART H—SEC. 3(£)J

New Delhi, tlic 5th December, 2001

SO. 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

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, which

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.)

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

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 accordance

7*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

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

Mosaboni Mine is justified? If not what reliV

Sh. M.S. Satar is entitled to and since when."

DECISION WITH REASONS

3. .1,110 management in order to substantiate their

"claim examined three witnesses, while the concerned

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

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

7795

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

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

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

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

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

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

IKE GAZETTE OF INDIA,: DECEMBER,29,- 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923

[PART I I - £ E C . 3(11)]

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001

. S. O. 3515.—In pursuance of

Section

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

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) :—

"Whathsr

the action of

the Management

of GEM Corporation of Orissa Ltd.

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 ?"

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<J on tho sams day i

leava application of the. applicant wa? -.iictbi n ^

77*7

and he had been to

his

native village.

Ine

applicant returned from leave on 11-3-1996 but

he has not allowed to join. When he asked the •

reason as to why his services has been terminated,

though he had worked for more than 240 days,

without any notice his services has been termi-

nated,

violating

the

requirements

Industrial

Dispute

Act. Hence

raised

the

dispute.

After failure of the reconciliation, the

reference

has

been

made.

The

1st Party-Management

in his

Written

Statement has pleadod that, the 2nd Party-Work-

man was engaged initially as a Watchman-cum-Peon

daily

wage

basis

and subsequently,

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.

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

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

the

1st Party-Management

termination

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

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

his case. When the 2nd Party-Workman ha^s

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

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

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<y Port Conservator. The master of the vessel

identified the petitioner and said that the petitioner

boarded Lhc Vessel and unauthorisedly took away the

pen belonging to the Master. The petitioner admitted

that he imauthorisedly took away the pen belonging

to the master of the Vessel and ir was in his house

and he returned to the Master of the vessel at 8.15

a.m. on 3-1-87. The charges levelled against the

petitioner are proved by the documentary and oral

evidence of Kannan and Fire Service Officer Mr.

Dhanapathy. The misconduct on the part of the

petitioner is serious amounting to dishonesty and

fraud affecting the Board's business, administration

and reputation- The master has got sentimental

value. TJie Master of the Vessel uses ~the said p e

779$

for preparing the notes. Th<s petitioner did mot e.sk

"for adjoflniment of'enquify on thd allegation that his

daughtst Was admitted in tho Private (Vijay)hOFpiial

as an impatient.

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,

"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

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.

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—13

7800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2G01/FAUSA 8. 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3r(ii)]

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 :

"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

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."

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

the delinquent

as a

result

the

order of

dismissal,

the facts of the above case may not be applicable

to the present case. While he seem to be very

much confident in getting some other avocation,

no interference in the punishment is required.

10. Even

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.

SR. 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

Petitioner-workman Thiru

Sampushparaj (xerox)

Ex. W 2

: Explanation

petitioner/

we rkman to Ex. W l

Ex. W 3 9-1-87

: Charge

memo

issued

petitioner-workman

(xerox)

EX. W 4

12-1-87

Letter

from

petitioner-work-

man

the

management

requesting a copy of Master's

report (xerox)

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

the

Enquiry

officer

(xerox)

7801

Ex. W 8

: Presenting officer's summing

report

(xerox copy)

Ex. W 9

: Petitioner workman's summing

report

the

enquiry

(xerox)

Ex. W 10 1-4-87

: Report

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

the

manage-

ment

(copy)

Ex. W 15 16-10-87 : Order of Appellate

Authority

rejecting the Appeal

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

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

XVI

M. M.

T. in

CC No.

7776/87

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001

S.O.

3517.—In

pursuance

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

relation

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

per

order, No. .^:L-3501,l,/2798/IR (M)

dated

17-8-98. The., dispute

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 aal 9 o.'jnrs, Lascars th^n

that

7802 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

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 P W < •

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 o^c 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 tut 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-

r l

-It

cerned workmen have made this reference again.

Over the self same issue it is not expected that another,

order is required to, 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

berty^ takfc app^opfi^^t<ips^gainiit ^jpap.agsT,

ment if the managemen| refused to reinstate^ them in

service violating the Order of the Hon,'bie Higji Court,

Patna, Ranpbi Bench- An; Awaj[d is pa^4, accord-

ingly-

B. BIS^wAS..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;Jn<Iustyja^: Trib^naJ^ Udpipw^s jfhowo 4p tho

Aniiejfjuie,.jD,th«, iudustriaJ, (Mspufe^c^weeQ, tbo

: 7805

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-

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

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?"

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.

The workman submitted a letter, signed by Mr,

R.P. Tripathi, Asstt. General Secretary, State Bank

of Bikaner & Jaipur Sbff Association. Varanari

which mention:, that the caw of Sri S,K.

Misra

(Sepecia! Asstt.) and Sri S.B. Singh (Teller) had since

baen decided internally and they are getting claimed

allowances and, also, that in view oi¹ the said facts,

the case be-closed and award bo given accordingly.

WHb6

THE GAZETTE OF I>«^-i^aW^*«Hi^,^«01v ^tmUSA 8. 1923

[PART-Ha*«ec^(ii)j

3. Qaim statefcfent lai'ifot been filed. The work-

man-by"it*-Jett«r dated 17*11-2001 -has requested for

closure of the case, since the grievance of the S.K.

M1s"ra^Lfcnd S.B. SlHgh late' ho ^briger¹'survive to be

adjudicated.

Accordingly "No Claim Award" is

given without eflteria g^itfto merit of the tflase.

4. Award as above.

Lucknow, 2?-l 1-S001

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

New Delhi,-the 3td December, 2001

S.O. 352t.^Iri*pursuance* of-Sebtion i7'of the

fn'dmtrlarD^ptte Act, 1947^(14 of i947),'fhe Central

Government'hereby piiblrshes the a^ard of'the

• Central Government

'ftixJustrial

Trifmnal-'Ctam-

Lfrbour Cotirt, Chcrtiriai as shown irithc Annexure

in the Industrial T>i$pttte betweerPWie-fcrrJ^Ieyers in

reffitronto'the rrfana^gement'of Sta-ndird Chartered

Bank, Madras and their workman/which was re-

ceived by the Central Government 6n 29-11-200],

(No: L-120l2/139/¹96-tR(B-I)]

A)AY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL.C^M-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 16th November, 2001

r RESENT .'K.-KARTrJlKEYA, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO, -M7/2Cb!

(Tamil Na'di; State Industrial ID. No. 89/97)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication

under clause (d)-of sub-section (1) and stib-sectiou

2(A) o? Section ]0 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 04 of 1947), between Sri Y. Kwmanan and the

Management of Standard Chartered Bank,-Chennai).

BETWEEN

Sri Y. Kttnrtoao, : I Party/Worktlwm

^AND

The Sfenior Manager,

: Il'*¹arty^1;/Ma'nii'g>i*fhent

Human' Resources,

Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman

: M/s. Aiyar & DoJiar, &

C.R. ChahdraSekafan Advocates

For the Mariagciment: M/s. S- RamaSubramaniam

& Associates, Advocates

The Govt, 'of^; Iridia, Mihrstry of

Labour

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

section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of

'Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), have

referred the cbncernbd Industrial Dispute for adju-

dication vide Order No. L-l 2012/139/9frIR(B-I)

dated 02-09-1997.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil

Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken

on file as I.D. No. 89/97. When the matter was

pending enquiry io that Tribunal, the Govt, of India

Ministry of Labour Was pleased to order transfer

of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for

adjudication. On receipt of

records from

that

Tribunal the case has been taken on file as I.D. No,

447/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on

record on

either side, 'informing them ftbout the

transfer of" this case to -this Tribunal, with s direction

to appear before this Tribunal on 27*02-2001. On

receipt of notice fi'om this Tribunal, the counsel on

'either side were present with their respective parties

aftd prosecuted fhis ease further,

Wten the matter came up before'me' for" final

•hearing on 09-10-2001, upon perusing the Claim

Statement, Counter Statement, the other materiaJ

papers on record, the documentary evidence let in

on either side, hearing the arguments advanced by

the ledrncd ccmnsel on either side and this matter

having stood over till <his date for consideration,

this Tribunal has passed the following:

AWARD

The Industrial¹ Dispute referred to ln"the abova

order of reference by" the Central Govt, for adjudi-

cation by this Tribonal is as follows:

"Wberher the ' action of the Mana'gehient oi

Standard Chartered-Bank, Madras irr imposing

the punishment of dismissal on Sri Y. Rumanar

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled "

2. The • averments in the. Claim Statement filed

by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:

The I Party/Claiment Sri Y. Kumanan (herein-

"iftef tf&ftrs to'as ^ritib^rywas appointed as a Cler^

7807

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.

accordingly,

initialled the

column "prepared by" in the said voucher.

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

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

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.

mechanically conducted the enquiry and examined five

witnesses for the management, 12 documents were

marked as management exhibits. The Petitioner

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 hiring.

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.

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.

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 :

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

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,

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

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 ;

The

Respondent/Management

Standard

Chartered Bank, Madras had dismissed the petitioner/

workman Sri Y. Kumanan from service, The said

action of the Management is being challenged by the

Workman Sri Y. Kumanan in this industrial dispute.

It is admitted that the Petitioner was appointed as a

clerk in the Respondent/Bank and he was issued a

charge sheet dated 17-2-93 containing charges as

incidence of misconducts committed by the petitioner/

workman during his services of employee in the

Respondent/Bank.

JEx. W-3 is the Xerox copy of the

charge sheet dated 17-12-93 issued to the Petitioner.

In pursuant to the issuance of the charge sheet,

domestic enquiry was conducted for the charges

levelled against the petitioner/workman.

Ex. M-4

is the xerox copy of the proceedings of the depart-

mental enquiry held into the charges levelled against

the Petitioner.

It is seen from thai document that

the charge sheeted employee the. Petitioner herein

had taken part in the domestic enquiry and he was

represented by Vice President of Tamil Nadu Bank

Employees

Federation

as defence

representative.

From the Ex. M-4 it is seen that 12 documents were

marked as Management exhibits, apart from exami-

ning 5 witnesses as MW 1 to MW-?. On behalf of

the Petitioner, charge sheeted employee apart from

examining himself as defence witness, 3 documents

were marked as defence exhibits.

It is the conten-

tion of the Petitioner that the allegations in the charge

sheet against the petitioner were not proved in the

domestic enquiry and hence, the findings of the

Enquiry Officer dated 28-1 -94 has no basis but it is

based on surmises, presumptions and assumptions

and his findings is ill conceive, perverse and violative

of principles of natural justice and the Fnquiry Officer

has not at all applied his mind in considering both

oral and documentary evidence let in on either side

for coming to a proper conclusion.

This conlention

of the Petitioner has been denied by the Respondent/

Management

and ' they contend

the

enquiry

was conducted fairly and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Olficcr

gave his findings after assessing the oral and docu-

mentary evidence placed before the enquiry by both

sides. The charges levelled against the Petitioner is

that on 4-12-93 he had fraudulently and dishonestly

input the transactions in the computer and debited

Rs. 4,600

the account No. 015 02r96l07 of Mr.

Yuvaraj and credited Rs, 4.600

from his account

No. 015-02-96410 with the bank.

It is the conten-

tion of the Petitioner that the S.B. account holder Mr.

Yuvaraj is his father and he gave authorisation letters

to withdraw amount from his S.B. account and with

that letters only he had withdrawn the sums from the

S.B. account of his falhei.

It is his further conten-

tion that those authorisation letters were submitted to

Mr. A. Selvaraj, Special Assistant for clearing depart-

ment, but the Management would contend that the

alleged authorisation letters were never in existence

and it was not produced at all during any of the

stages of the enquiry by the delinquent employee and

it has not seen by Mr. Selvaraj, Special Assistant in

the clearing department.

Mr. Selvaraj alsu has

denied such authorisation letters mentioned by the

Petitioner.

Ii is admitted that a sum of Rs. 4,550

withdrawn out of Rs. 4,600 credited to the account

of the Petitioner from the account of his father Mr.

Yuvaraj.

U is also admitted that he has put his

initial in the relevant vouchers column prepared by

but the Petitioner would contend due to force of

habit he had initialled the said vouchers,

lhe fact

that Mr. "Yuvaraj account is debited and the Petitioner

account is credited both on 4-12-93 and 11-12-93

were not disputed.

For even¹ debit Luid credit entry,

there must he corresponding vouchers.

From the

materials available in this case, it is '-ecu that the

entries were made without vouchers. Ex. W- 2 is a

xerox copy of the memorandum dated 13-12-93 by

the Manager, Customer Services to the Senior Managei

Operations Vith regard to irregular transactions in

SralY account.

This memorandum has been marked

as Ex. M-3 in the domestic enquiry, wherein it is

stated about the irregular transaction taken place in

the clearing department on 11-12-93 with regard to

transfer of Rs. 900 from the account of Mr. Yuvaraj

to Mr. Y. Kumanan'¹- account without any instruc-

tions from Mr. Yuvaraj and without

any proper

authorisation of the Officer'special Assistant.

It is

further staLed in that memo that Mr. Y. Kumanan

himself has posted the entry without proper vouchers

and through User ID MAR of the clerk in the clearing

department and the further investigation reveals that

two more transactions taken place on 4-12-93 for

Rs. 4,600 on similar grounds. The Petitioner has

been examined as DW-1 iu ihe dome.iie ciiqiury

7810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29. 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923

[PART It—-SEC. -Will

1 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 kvn

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,

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

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

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

"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

27-09-93

Xerox copy of the notice i-sued

by Management

13-12-93 Xerox copy of the memorandum

from the Manager Customer Ser-

vices, Madras :o Sr. Manager,

Operation*)

17-12-93 Xerox copy of the

chargesheet

of the Petitioner issued by Ihe

Management

23-12-93 Xerox copy of the proof of deli-

very of chargesheet

and sus-

pension order.

23-12-93 Xerox copy of the letter from

Petitioner

to the Disciplinaiy

Authority

27-12-93 Xero\ copy of the letter from

ihe Disciplinary Authority Lo

the Petitioner

<)>02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from

ihe

Petitioner

:o i],e

Disci-

plinary Authority

7812

THE GAZETTE OF TNDFA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923

|PAKT N — S E C . 3(ii)]

WIO

For the

i:x, No.

M10

Mil

M12

M13

MI4

07-02-94

23-12-93

2K-01-94

1) Pany/M;

Dale

28-12-93

Nil

15-12-93

28-12-^3

17-01-94

27-01-94

19-02-94

18-02-94

19-02-94

02-04-94

30-04-94

04-06-^4

22-05-95

Nil

• Xerox ropy of the letter from

Disciplinary Authority

the

Petitioner

Xi'i'n> copy ot the letter from

the Petitioner

o Hie Discipli-

nary Authority

Xerox%c\.py of the letter from

the Disciplinary Authoiity to the

Petitioner

inagement :—

Description

Xerox copy of the leUer from

Sri Yuvuraj to

Disciplinary

Authority

Xerox copy of the Ic tor from

Sri Yuvaraj o the Management.

Xerox ei.py of the letter Lo the

Petitioner from the Disciplinary

Anthony

Xerox copy of

the enquiry

proceedings

Xerox ci;py of the memorandum

from

the Manager,

Irdi'stnal

Relations to he Senior Manager,

Employee Relations.

Xerox copy of ihc note to ihe

legal Advisor from the

Disci-

plinary Authority.

Xerox ropy of the things

dis-

cussed at v.he executive centre.

Xerox copy of the proceedings

of the personal hearing granted

'o Petitioner

Xerox copy

of the dismissal

order of the Disciplinary Autho-

rity

Xerox copy of the lot:IT from

tin- Petitioner to Appellate Au-

thority

Xerox copy of the p-oce-edings

of personal hearing by the Ap-

pelhite Authority.

Xerox copy of the lrttor from

iho Hc:;d of Hum^n Resources

to the Petitioner

Xerox copy of the letter from

Petitioner

o Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central)

Xerox cony of the U'A of witnesses

lisl ol Oocimieni¹. lelird upon

by i he Resp udeii.

M15

M16

M17

04-12-93 Xerox

copy of the batch slip

No, CLTK03

04-12-93

Xerox copy nf the debii slip of

Sri Yuvaraj.

04-12-93

Xeiox i x p y oi , K ticclu slip ol

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

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

2. The workman Shri Joshi vide his State-

ment of Claim (Ex-4) pleaded that he was

appointed as Substitute Asstt. Cook

the

tirade of Rs. R00-I150 in

Central Railway.

Mumbai C.S.T. on 26-6-89. Since hi* s ^v^;ee<;

were

illegally terminated, he had

Oled Ref.

No 2 2°/ of

1991 hefore

the C.O.I. T-2.

Mumbai which was allowed vide Award dtd.

15-10-91 and that he was reinstated bv the

R-iilwav on 6-10-89.

but not on his original

pos⁽ in Mumbai.

It is, contended that

reinstating, the workman was transferred

Indian Railway Institute of Civil Engineering

r* ?[ir'\

However, as there \v;ts no nosf

Piine, he wn= <;ent brick 'o Mumbai

Accord-

in¹¹ f^¹ him. he was not "iv.-i' ^eninrify from

•^fifiS⁰,

His

junior

M^r Hiivmlr⁰

Si^gh

Th ri-iii- who w;i^r .'innoin^d on 0-1-00.

wns

n i^.r^,u^,t^,,|^,.,.^{r^oV ir,}^(I-,,-.^{^ V}

o^{f 050-1^00}

fro'T¹ "^ l-°4

ignoring

hh seniority.

The

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

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

Order

dtd. 27-12-97 and immediately thereafter, il is

contended by the workman that, he was trans-

ferred from Mumbai Division

to Punc

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,

contends, he be given

Seniority and Promo-

tion and his transfer order be held illegal and

unjustified.

3. The

Management,

Central

Railway,

resisted

ihe claim

of workman

filing

Written Statement

(Exhibit-6)

contending

that 'he tribunal has no jurisdiction to enter-

tain ritv) decide the reference.

Ti is remind-

ed that the function ivrform by the Railway

•ire Statutory in nature.. The railway perform

Sovereign

functions

the

welfare mea-

sure

of its citizens, which are not provid-

ed bv "T-IV prof⁵* motive ipdivir1u,"l np'l

any

r¹.rf\cit ii-| +V r^venuf. Th'"¹ ^rrvice of Railway

F-'HS pi-irl'T Constitution of Tndin pnrl thfrc-

fon*

Riiiwov i« TIO+ nn indusfrv.

|> is con-

VnrWI t1i,-ii Mr, Toshi is n Dovernnippt Servant I

'"'ivil

S'*<"\"ir\t

TTjs "j'TA/ir¹!""^ 'if,i To^'eni^H

h y

the "itatnfory

rules 3nd refjnlations framed

7KU

HIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : LU-CLiMUtlR ?'), 2U01,. I-'AUSA X. 1913

[PAIU II—Stc 3(iij]

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

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

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:

f^T"O'^M bv wny of Fxnininniion-in Chief

anil

af'tT this cross-examination by the workman

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

the

management in not giving pro-

per seniority to

Mr. Joshi is

justified ?

Yes.

3. Whether

the

action

the

management in not giving pro-

motion to Joshi is justified ?

Yes,

4. Whether

the

action

the

management

transferring

Joshi from Head

Quarters to

Division is justified ?

No.

5. If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to ?

per order.

REASONS

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

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

mtrnn of judgments il is clear that railway is

nn industry and that jurisdiction is conferred

7315

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

observed as under :—

"Administrative Tribunal have been con-

stituted under the Act made by the

Parliament under Article 323 A of

the Constitution for providing

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

litigation in ordinarv courts and

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

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)

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,

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

(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 applicable

3854 GI/2001—17

7816

11 Hi GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 2'), 2(IO1.T'AUSA 8. 1923

LPART II—Src. 3(ih|

to workmen

etc.

Parliament

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."

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

the

category

'workman.'

Consequently this tribunal

has

jurisdiction lo decide the

reference.

Issue

No. 1 is answered accordingly.

8. Once it is clear that this

tribunal has'

jurisdiction lo decide the reference points crop

on the seniority, promotion and transfer

the workman. So far as seniority and promo-

tion of Joshi is concerned, admittedly he was

appointed as Substitute

Assistant Cook

Grade 800-1150 in

the Catering Department

of Central Railway on 26-6-89. It is further •

admitted position

that

workman had

filed

Reference No. 22 of 199] as he was dismiss-

ed from service and the same was ended

his favour by Award dtd. 15-10-91, resulting

in his reinstatement. According to workman.^!

during

the

period

oT his

dismissal

one^:

Birendra Singh Thakur who was appointed as^;

Sub Asstt. Cook on 9-1-1990 was promoted as

Cook in Grade Rs. 950-1500 from 27-1-94;

ignoring his seniority.

The Learned Counsel;'

Shri Anchan inviting attention of this Tribunal '

to the cnluininous documents on {he record,¹

and the written submissions urged that Thakur

being junior should not have bren promoted

and therefore the cmestion of Seniority also

comes into picture.

Railway, Asstt, Person-'

ncl Officer Mr, Motwani stated that workman

was recruited as casual labour initially.

was rcftil.-'rised

later on i.e. in J992- where-¹

as, Thakur w:is appointed >s n direct recruit

nrrnin-si ihn SC'ST ouotn

the year 1 Q90,

Since work mans services were regularised lo^fer

on he was shown junior to Thakur. therefore,

workman cannot become senior lo Thakur.

Thi' T.tMrrrxi Tounsel

Shri Siiresh

Kumar

.snbninrd that Tlnhir wns promoted by way

of sfWiion method and when"¹ tlviv is selec-

tion, tlic junior if more

meritorious to

the

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.

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.

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.

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..

11. So far the action of management

transferring Joshi from Head

Quarters

Division is concerned, according to him, he

is staff attached to Head quarter office where

his seniority is to be maintained and that his

Competent authority

Chief Commercial

Manner, Catering, Mumbai, CST, whereas

(he Senior Divisional Personnel

Officer

order dtd. 16-L97 who has no authority to

transfer him to Divisionni Office Pnne .->nd that

•he said ord^r is made with maiafide intention.

The Turned

Counsel Mr. Sur^h Kumar,

/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

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.

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

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

workman

was competent

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

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

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

the

management in not

'.-riving proper

seniority to Mr. Joshi is justified.

Action of the management in not .uiving

promotion

Joshi

Is justified.

Action of the

management trans-

ferring workman Joshi from Head

Quarters to Division is neither legal

nor justified.

The management

therefore, directed to givv* him Ori-

ginal

posting

Head QuarVr.

C.S.T. Mumbai.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR. Presiding Officer

7818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBT-R 10, 2001/FAUSA 8. 1923

[PAAT II—SEC. 3(n)]i

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2001

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

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001

S.O. 352-1.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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 UK^J 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<S-1R(B-1)|

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

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

prepared a voucher in respect ot the S'avin±;s Bank Account

ol an t... Lmswaraian Account No. btvlO^Ji lor Ks. ,iU0

lor remittance which nc received nuni liie depositor making

an entry in itn; pass book. Later it came to hym Lli.n he u a

not account lor Ihc money though he receded u. However

he made a liciilious cntiy in (he pass oook aiui IIIIVIITIO-

priatc ihc amount. Similarly in tne Savings u,un. A . _.unt

ol Y. Vcnkaiasubbamma Account No. *ri.i_>/;>,4 wuui -<iie

tppioached Hie bunk on 23-7-91 a vouchu- tor K'i. u-tu \,as

prepared and thut he received tlic same mukinj me ci.iry

into u pass book without remitting into iiic bank, me iicutMus

entry Was shown in the pass nook. Similarly lie icuMved

Ks. 7,001) Irom I¹. Suoranidnyam, Saving!; iiank Account

Jiolder No. 11/773. Without remitting Lue said amount he

made a fictitious entry in the savings p^s book and mis-

appropriated the amount. So also in respect of the account

holder ol Smt. Ci. VenkatasubLiamma Saving Bank Account

holcier MO. tu/10771 loi Rs. 3,000. The petitioner workman

submitted a reply dated 7-10-92 denying the chuiges.

enquiry officer was appointed und the petitioner workman was

defended by T. E. Jayaprakush Rao, Deputy Geneial Secretary

ot the S.B.i, Staff Union. The enquiry otllcer had not lollowed

die rules and regulations in conducting tho enquiry as such

it is violativc ot the principles ot natuial justice. The ueeuur.l

holders were not at all examined during the enquiry.

The

documents were not produced during the ci.quiry, as ^ucli n.i

cognizance can be taken in token ol' evidence a^ spoken by

the witness. Sri T. Vishwanatham had deponed thai he is not

a trained person in comparing hand writings und there is a

scope lor omissions and mistakes in Hie identification cf

handwritings.

Sri B. Rajender

Naidu,

Biancli

Managci.

Konduru branch did not confirm the initials appealing in ihe

pass hook thai the same were noted by the pentioiici-workman.

So also T. S. K. RagJ^vnn, had not confirmed the identity

of the disputed entries and he could not identily Ihe hand

writing ot the person who made (he entries ol Rs. .500 in

Account JNo. 66/10931 ol the Account holder Sri Eswynah.

The account holders Smt. Subbamma, T. Siibrarnan\am were

not examined about the alleged payment oi Ihe amounts. The

conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer is erroneous

and baseless. The disciplinary authority had not taken into

consideration of the clean and spotless record of the work-

man. Hence prayed to set aside the impugned cider of

discharge dated 25-4-95 passed against him.

3. Denying the allegations, the respondent filed the Counlti

and briefly stated the averments arc as under : —

The petitioner had committed irregularities tcniamountMg

to serious misconduct, so he was issued with a charge sheet

dated 7-lO-y2 calling for an explanation. Jle submitted ex-

planation on 28-10-92 denying the charges. A tegular enquiry

was ordered and enquiry was conducted complying with the

principles of

natural

justice. The

bank manages

were

examined as PVV1 and PW2 and they gave evidence on tne

basis of Ex. Ml to M16, After holding the enquiry complying

with the principles of natural justice, the enquiry officer sub-

mil ted his report on 1-12-93. A copy ol tlie enquiry rcpou

was sent to the workman calling for his explanation. After

considering the report and evidence, a thow cause notice

dt, 29-4-95 was issued proposing to impose punishment tor

the proved misconduct, A final.order was passed on 20-10-9.5

alter giving personal hearing. The workman had preferred

an appeal which was duly considered

and ihe

appellate

authority had confirmed the order on merits. The entries in

the pass hooks and the hooks of accounts clearly establish that

the workman had misappropriated the funds. "Ihc respondent

being a financial institutions to discharge duties as (rushes

of public funds and can hardly afford the luxury of liavm^

such person who lacks integrity and loyalty to the institution.

The fraudulani acts warranted imposing the punishment ot

dismissal but lesser punishment of discharge from service

was imposed. The appellate authority had also decided the

appeal on merits. Hence prayed to dismiss Ihe claim.

4. The point for adjudication is whether the Petitioner-

Workman is entitled for the relief of reinstatement, by setting

aside the impugned order?

The workman had disputed the

domestic enquiry proceedings as violalive of the principle-- or

natural justice During the preliminary inquiiy, the prim:i-

lacie evidence available on record was con-ndeied, As ihc

workman was- given an opportunity and ihnt he participulcd

in the enquiry, it was held (hat the domestic enquiry was

conducted fairly in compliance wi(h the principles of natural

MMiee .mid (IK- morns of Ihe case will rv cm-idei,-rI nt Ihc

slwe of final :ii-gumenis. The poinls to be adjudicated arc

( 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.

f>. While defending (he workman in respect of the charges

levelled, it was argued that during the domestic inquiiy the

complainant/account holders were

nol examined,

so (he

evidence on record cannot be given any weight and consi-

deration. It h pointed out (here is no evidence to show there

was a misappropriation of the funds by the workman while

discharging his duties. The interested testimony of the hank

officials who are prejudicial to (he workman cannot be taken

as a criteria Cor imposing a disproportionate punishment of

removing from service in contravcniion of Section ll(A) of

l.O. Act.

7. On the other hand it was argued for the respondent

hank that in the domestic enquiry proceedings strict rules of

evidence Act need not be lollowed. In J1 probability the

complainants who arc the account holders subsequent to

petting the amounts from the hank vcre noi interested to

prosecute and colluded with the Petitioner avoiding Io give

evidence. When the evidence is puiely based on record which

has been proved and established, it is nol necessary to secure

Uie presence of account holders The staff who are very

much familiar and acquainted with the liandwi!lin:r of the

workman in the day to day work and dealing with the

Iransaelions

have

confirmed

the entries

of the scrolls,

vouchers and pass book. The main criteria is the reputation

of the respondent bank who us a trustee nf the public funds

have to take care, and cannot take risk to continue unreliable

employees m the service at the cost of lind repul ilion.

8. Under Hx Ml dated

7-10-1992, the employer

had

initiated disciplinary action against the woikinnn, by issuing

a charge sheet alleging that while he '.vas working as cle:k

in Savings Bunk counter at Koclur branch

he committed

certain omissions and commissions viz..

That an account holder (h6/l 1)431) had approached

him on 5-12-1990 to prepare a voucher for crediting

Rs. 500' into his account, which amount he had

received made an entry in the S.uinss Hank pass

book. Later it came to light that be did not account

for Ihe moncV so received and ilvit he had made a

fictitious entry in ihe pass hook by misappropriating

the amount ihal counting the same into Die bank.

Thai an account holdci Smt Y. V,-nk.ita-ubliamma

hearing No. I41/67R1) approac-lvd him mi 75-7-1y^I

Id piepare a voucher foi civditiiiT lis MO imo lit i

aiconnl

wlinh amount

he liad received without

leiniltiny ihe same into b.inks •lecount, ] uither, thai

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.

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.

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

tliL

i c l a l i v e

p a s s

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.

I^s- On the basi-- of the oral and documentary evdence

the enquiry officer nave his findings in E\

M4 in which

with leuaul to Charge No. 1 he gave the findinr;s holding tha:

Hie defence in not tenable, in the liphl of the evidence to

prove mis.irtpmpiidled of ilio .minimi b\ ill* workm.ui who

iii.idi- entiio, in llie p,is^r, bonk find it^;s n.iiiiril t!i;,l uric

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.

19. PW2 was won over and so he stated that he cannot

confirm the hand writing. The quality of the evidence is the

criteria but not quantify. The evidence of PWI coupled w'ilh

the documents Ex. PI to PI3 is sufficient to hold that, the

workman who had dealt with the Saving Branch was res-

ponsible, and he made the entries in the pass book; on receipt

of payments without showing corresponding posting in the

ledger sheets of the account holders.

F.veiy transactions

cannot he verified by the superior official.

The workman

having received the amounts was responsible to account for

in the ledgers on the basis of ledger entries, c.ish will be

handed over to the cashier who acknowledges the tcceipt of

the amount of each day. It is a matter of trust and confideni;;-

belween the Clerical Stall and Supervisory StalT. Genera]

Practice in the bank is that the concerned saving bank clerk

at the counter would on receipt of payment from the account

holder would make an entry in the ledger and notes down

the corresponding remittance in the saving bank book and

then remit (he cash with the cashier. With refer/IL'¹ to the

ledger entries the cash had to ho verified by the'cashier and

if nil entries are shown in the ledger it is deemed that no

cash w.is received

Similarly when the Savings Bank cl.-rl:

iimkes" :m entry in the pas? book and u'l'nns it to the

ai'COLini holder, it is deemed that amount was received. The

7V I

tranm-rions would come to light when the account holder

go lor withdrawal, at later point of time. Till a complaint,

is received by Hit; hunk manager hu will not have an occasion

to verify [hi- entries and confirm as to who iiiid dealt wilh

the iraiT-nclions on llie relevant date, Afler verification lie

would rcfei it to viwlancc section for probing inlii the mutler.

The ollicial acts shall be presumed to be comsct and it is for

the pei-son who disputes it has to rebiitt it showing the

lucimae 0/ delects in it. On a close scrutiny of the evidence

on record it is clear that the workman as a Saving Bank Clerk

having dealt with I he money transaction of tiic 4 account

holder', had

la,led to account

for the

amount by

mis-

appropriating it which omission is a serious misconduct and

bv means of which the Banks reputation in the public ROt

attected. The non-examination of account holders as wit-

nesses WHS neither important nor fatal in a disciplinary action

against the employee. It is only in Criminal Prosecution the

standard of proof is hiph which requires examination of

complainants. In the decisions of the APKX COURT J. D.

JAIN Vs. S.B.I. AIR 19S2. S.C Page 673. STATE OF

HARYANA Vs RATTAN SINGH AIR 1977. S.C. Patte 1512

it was made clear that examination of the complainant is not

essential and in domestic inquiries strict rules of Evidence

Acl are not applicable. Similarly, If there ^re relevant materials

on record in the inquiry report and the inquiry office!- based

1he findings on material facts the same cannot be r^viev.ed

vide Union of India -Vs- K. A. Kittu, 2001. (SR) F.I..R (SC)

pngc 244.

20. Section 11A of I.D, Act, 1947, comes to the re-cue

of an industrial workmen if the management imposts severe

punishment in trivial matters of misconduct but not in cases

of .crave misconduct, especially in white collared offences

where the bank employee as a trustee while discharuini! dul.es

fails to fulfil his obligation and commits hivndi hy em-

bezzling the amounts or misDnpronriatine the funds deposii.'d

by the account .holders, which will erode the lepmation and

functioning of the banking system. So, in such cases it is

not desiruhle to show uncalled for sympathy as has been

deputed 1-v the Apex Court in S.B.I. Vs. TARUNKUMAR

2000 T..L.R. (S.C ) paee 1274 TANATA BA^AR. CFNTRAT.

COOPFRATIVt: STORKS TJMJTF.D Vs. SKCRFTARY OF

THF. SOCIFTY 2000 L L.R. S.C. Page 1271

21. Therefore on an iwer all consideration of the tactual

and le.^al aspects, a reasonable conclusion is arrived at that

the r.cls of omission and commission of the workman amount*

to serious .misconduct which does not warrant any interfetence

by tnkinc a lenient view of it

22. In the result, an award is passed dismissing the claim

and consequently the

impugned order

of disclui.ue

from

service i\ herehy confirmed as legal and valid. No costs.

Dictated

to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him

corrected bv me and given under my hun/l nnd ihe seal of

this Tribunal on this the 7th day of November, 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal

Appendix of Evidence.

No oral evidence for both the sides.

Documents marked for the Petitioner ;

NIL

Documents marked -for the Respondent (By consent)

Ex. Ml 7-10-92 Show Cause Notice issued to the work-

man Sri M. Chanpanna to initiate action.

F.x. M2 28-10-92 Denial letter submitted I7 the work-

man to Ex. Ml.

E\ M3 Enquiry 'Proceedings enclosing the xerox copies

ol the documents.

Fx. M4 Fnquiry findings,

Ex. MS 4-1-94 Representation submitted bv Ihc pctitio'ier

to the AGM and Disciplinary Authority

Fx M6 2y-4-95 Older of the ACM and Discipliimrv

authority

h\- M7 Proceedings of the disciplinmy authority.

Ex. MR 20-6-95 Proceedings

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.

1'x. MI3 30-1-96 Older passed bv 'he Dtmitv Gcm-i-;*¹

Manager and Appellate Authority in ;1K- ,_;ise ol

Sri M. Chansanna.

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

AMY KUMAR, Desk OWeer

ANNEXURE

THE

COURT

THE

INDUSTRIAl

TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

(Dated, this the 30th day of October, 2001)

PRESENT :

Sri P. V. Abraham.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO

1198

RETWFEN

MANAGEMENT:

The Chairman, Federal Bank

Ltd.,

Alwave

(By

Sri

V. Mathew

Kadavnn,

Ailvocf,-

Trivandrum,)

7 n ' 2

r i m

G A Z E T T E

or-" T N D I A

• D E ^ n i v m r R

; . o , M O I , F A U S A

1 9 2 3

[ P A R T

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 ?"

1. As per preliminary order dated 27-7-1999

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.

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

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,

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 <mi1tv of misconduct rf doinf

octs

nrejud'cinl to the interest of the bank After considering

thf various submissions of 1hc wnrVmnn on th*¹ en-

quiry

report, the punishment of dismissal was

7823

- 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 reprinted in the enquiry by an Advocate of

his choice arJ 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 <<y comp^ute one of such misrppro-

priaions committing various misappropriations Ihe had

paid Rs. ?5,000 in Hi 2^rM aoconn No, 2183

22-10-1986.

At ths relevant time the workrmn was

having about 14 years experience a> clerk r^nd

his

conten'ron that he had acted merely as per 'lie induc-

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

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. Ml.

6. The main points of attack pnaimt 'he enquiry

,ai^Je That the cW.res rcmrdini* whxh cnqn^:rv

was

conducted arc v^ptie, indefinite and not specific snd

nho that th? findings are pcrve-TR(\

The

ch^r^c?

levelled f^ains' the wor'cmrm as nsr charprshpr-t dnf<?d

l'6-9-l?SR are narrated in derail in f!m cln-'m state-

ment of fie workman.

Thrrn nre a}to^r"-fh?^r

five

<-|H."|"ffi;s fiWcwd rrrVinnrorvfat'op of moncv, mani-

pu^Trit>ons 'rt the bmk re"orc^ls, coilu^'^n \y',th

n'h^r

emp)o'"ec's of fhn branch, vnauthorT^ot⁴ wrfbdfrw''s

etc.

On a ren.d^nfT of th" cha^^es it is pyn'ont ihnt

charges are specific and dear.

There \s no diffici'lty

in unvic.-stanc'.ing the jni:,con'Ai;f;> levelled ag.'.inst the

workman.

The workman has subrnitir-d exphination

da'ed 30-9-1P88 to the rhnr'/csrir-ct wh'ch sho-vs that

he hps understood tht* charpfs fully und Hearh'.

the cxp'anation ^he vvorkmrm Iia¹? nof s'afed thai he

could not nndersi;'r^|d the chnvpes levelkrl a^'nsf h'm

and he has ne^f rctincsfcd for any dnrificition

from

the management.

.Moreover it is noticenWe^;1iat the

worlcriPia or his Ao'voci!e who aKs'ftsd the vorkrnan

in the enquiry, never mad? any complaint to

the

enriviry officer during the course of the enquiry that

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.

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

the

3854¹GI/2C01—18

7824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923

[PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)]

charges and merely because they aic employees

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.

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

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.

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.

10. Theic is no allega'ion of anv irr;:inilarity

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

natviral iustice.

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 n^re proper,

valid a'v\

supported by legal

evidence.

12. The charges

found

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.

IV. Tn the result, an ".w;ird is passed holding that

the wojkimn is n?* j!^:riW? tor nny rHiff.

P. V. ABR-XHAM, Industrial TriBuhal

^Yiln^ss exp.iTVr.r.1 "n the s*de of the Management.

MWl.—Sri C. Rechunand:v.:m,

Document marked on the side of the Management.

Ex', Ml.—-Enquiry file containing, enquiry"pro-

ceedings, findings,

statement of witnesses

and connected documents.

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)],

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNHXURE

I3EFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAX-T AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tri-

bunal-L

Dated : 17th day of October, 200]

Industrial Dispute No. 25/1999

BETWEEN

D. S. Ravi Raj,

Luke View Colony,

Door' No, 25/1-977,

9th Lane, Podalafcur Road,

Nellore.

Petitioner

AND

State Bank of India,

ZonrJ Office,

Thirupathi.

, . Respondent.

APPEARANCES :

Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate

for

the

Petitioner,

7825

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

21-11-1988 •

26-11-1988'

29-11-1988 •

Amount

Rs.

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.

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 on

7816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2C01/FAUSA S. 1923

(PAR' , n—SEC

3(n)l

lT-b-1994, for which Lc prepared a voucher remit?

ting the amount in the customers account. Further

he had received Rs. 1000 on 10-4-1994 iioin Sri N.

Subbaiah a customr maintaining S.It. Account Mo,

12/2313 and did not account lor the amount in the

branch books. However an entry fur the aniuunt was

made in the pass books.

The said fictitious entry

came to light on 17-6-94, for which he prepared cre-

dit voucher. Further aiieged that he received ks. 1850

9-5-1984 from S.B. A/c. 2/233 and did

not

account for the amount in the books of accounts, how-

ever made an entry for the said amount m the pass

book. About the said fictitious entry in the pass book,

it came to light on 11-5-94 for which he prepared

credit voucher. Further he issued the D.O. .Purchase

facility by negotiating savings bank withdrawals with-

out keeping sufficient balance in the S.ii. Account.

During the enquiry the account holder was not exa-

mined, muchless the expert who gave the opinion was

called for to cross examine him. In respect of the

second allegation the witnesses PV/2 Smt. Karnaiiamnia

could not confirm the date of remittance of the amount

and also identify the person who had received the

amount.

In respect of the third allegation

Sri N.

Subbaiah could not identify his own thumb impres- •

sion and recollect the dates. So also the witness, PVV'6*

Sri Anjaiah could not identify the hand writing oa £foc.~

No. 7 except stated the facts on account of fuiorhig

given to him. The wife of B. Narsiah (Joint A-Ccoimt

Holder) could not tell the dates on which she remit-

ted the amounts in the bank. The prosecution failed

to produce the scroll and relevant registers for the

period.

The petitioner workman had remitted

the,

amount under protest. The enquiry officer assumed,

the role of prosecution. The workman had submitted;

the xerox copies of the letter of Sri N. Subbaiah, Smt. •

Bhagyamma and Kum. Shoba RanJ addressed to the

A.G.M.R.-I1 Thirupathi in which they mentioned that

they never gave a complaint against the workman but

the same were suppressed from production. The peti-

tioner workman had put in 19 years of service \vi;houc

any remarks and Lis services were appreciated by the

officials. On account of the punishment, petitioner can-

not get any subsequent 'service either in public,

private sectors. Hence prayed fo set asicte the impugn-

ed order of discharge dated 2-9-S6 passed by the dis-

eiplinary

authority, as confirmed by the

appellate

authority.

11. The respondent management filed counter ami"

in brief the averments are as under :—

The petitioner did not submit any

to the

Charge-sheet, so an enquiry officer was appointed tc

prove the charges levelled against him. The enquiry

officer had observed the principles of natural justice and

following the rules and regulations of the service had

conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. On

the basis of the enquiry report and appreciation of the

same a Show Cause Notice was issued calling far the

explanation from the workman as to why -he should

not be inflicted with proposed punishment of dismissa)

from the bank services. After considering the represen-

tation submitted, a personal hearing was also given

and thus a discharge order dated 2-9-96 was passed

against the workman discharging him from

service.

The workman preferred an appeal which was re-exa-

mined by the apjtellal; authority and it was confirmed

on merits

As per

the prc- v i i i o n s

u n d a ^-

p u i a

ic.zo

v»jwe awazaea p u ^ . l e l l l b y U i c w a y o t

puaaiy acuon, tr.e auwmy

c o n ^{^}d

s a a u^{V e into}

amount, me g.avny oi w 0 ^

l n e

piCV10US

ALCUIU a any ux me M J ^

^ e u u a L .

aig eucuiunauces inaL I

' e x u l

A l ^J

l C C u r U w a s

U l < " w

b* D' e ax^P

iiuaiy auuiGiuy wmui wM not

Cican ana tnere Vvc

vv^,

.. .

>•£ no extenuating ureuinsi-aneey

iia niig lessei yj ^nisiiiueni. Hie woihiuan nau cioss

cxmnuieu uie win¹

* .c^aa ana avaiieci the oupoiLunuy so

lie iiai no imtii '

° , <.o idnc up me laiiuo now, iiioie paru-

.. " ,

wiiCii r i J t w o r j^ I u a I l s representative nuu not

,'""' ^u

i e i3j1 ^e. aiaict lUie^ OJ. ^ViUcnee .ict ii^ca noi

"4 JULitig aouKsut; cuquuy. /IL nrsi we lruu-

* ^ ,^d "^ cauie iu ugut iVby, bUOjequenuy me m-

ct"Jo'a'.iO!" L nau leveaieu mat miuniioiu acLs \veie com-

^' ^- *i*i Uiu prucciu OL la^ebUj^aLioa coiiJiucraDH/

iiC

wafi rcqUiiied tu verny Uiu records covenag van-

J pcr/ious so no nuia flaea to be xnipuica LO Uic

duuiig^ iuont. tlie banks goodwuf and puDuc trust u

a paitjjiount basis upon wine-ji batiiK is ouuu up, ihc

lraudu'^ent acxs oi me wortman as an einpioyce has

causa'L luepuiiabie uaaiagc and nana to uif reputation

of tnc b^DK. frauuuient acis cannt^t be wjnuoned.

iieiiyo prajed. to chsnnss the ciakn.

t2. The p<oint for adjudication is (I.) wheliier the

evidence lei pa during me domestic enqtury establishes

the charges of fiauu and misapjjnopri tUion of iunus

oi cuistonierfc kept in trie Savings Bank Accounts V

(2) Whether the punishment of discharge oi: tin;

.workman :from tank services is cither proporlionaU-

•or disprofpcrtionate to the

charges levelled

againsi

him?

13. Tiifi petitioner workman had disputed the vali-

dity oi this domestic enquiry, lu n pjreiiminaiy inquiry,

an oixL-i <iated 1 3-7-2001 was passed holding thai the

ciomeiiiu enquJrj was conducted Jiuirzy in compliance

with the principj cs of natural jujitice and ,the merits

o/ tltc case wid fc in considered at Ihc stane of the final

nrgutr/cnts.

^ * Curing uiti uiui mgunicncs on tni; mac oi, L;JG

management the (documents Ex. Ml to Ml4 which

is a record permit ling to the domej.dc .enquiry

were

marked by consent and sJmJaj.iy Ex£. \VrJ to V/5 vere

ms fi.ed on the side of the workman.

15. Point No., 1J—Ex. Ml d(ated 12-10-03 and M2

AtoU. 3-^-94 are -two separate, charge sheeifs

lint

'ere issued to the Turkman k i the acte ;of -DraiEsioa

id_ _ coiruiiijsii an csnimiicd b)' him.

^liile :hs ins

cr^iTjg as a ( dcrk-ctmi-Cnrh:^ r at

Nellore Branch

id Maipaud I ranch.

In Ex. l.'\ s2*cu ch*r;:3 CL

i{-piy and mi fcappscr-riation o f tlic ScTvinga

"b'uik

counts of ihe recount hoVdsvi; of th; iiiree Pnvjygs

•Jife E;c.T:nt h Diners a:ic? o'ti'2» * cheque ^rrep^lsrUh'S

nnmitfed have', been pointryl emit.

SiinJlarly

Ex.

2.' ;the acts off forgery, frcud iiud- mii^propriatlon

sayJngs bank

account of four rrtonn'r, holders ond

l»er. cheque ir regularities Invr trch) c'.m.mited ' by

5 \djfkm;yn, \ vhifc he \vo±aS '•the.^Tli In i'lo.c 'we,

ancttips of tin 9 bank.

An cxplan'-Fion war,

c;'Hei

, fr <r which no? explanation w i

rK1c voWtzd ?nd there-

an enquiry w as ordared appcj ntih^ sn enquiry oS^.

7827

cer. Ex. M4 and M7 arc the domestic enquiry pro-

ceedings pertaining to the enquiry proceedings held

against the workman. Ex. M5 and M6 are the ob-

jections submitted by the defence representative in

respect of trie prosecution w:'f^"s-cs, r,^^:'i¹ing pir¹ as

to how evidence let in pertaining to charges is defec-

tive. Ex. iviii aad i\i> aie u:c ^±.qji-j u ....•.••gs i>ad-

mitted by the enquiry officer *o the disciplinary autho-

rity. Ex. M10 is the show cause no'ice calling for

explanation from the workman !o rhow cause as to

why proposed punishment

shovld not 03 imposed.

Ex. Mil is the record pertaining to 'disciplinary pro-

ceedings. Ex¹. Ml2 are the nr'nutes of the proceed-

ings made in respect of giving personal hearings. Ex.

M13 is the covering letter of the dijc'n'inary fcrward-

ing appeal submitted by the workman tojhe aoncJlste

authority against the impugned order of d'scharge

from sisrvice. Ex. Ml4 is th- orde" ppssed by the

appellate authority confirming the order nf th* cl'sc¹'-

plinary authority. The Workman fi'cd Ex. Wl

W5 which are tlhe statements given by the account

holders denying about the allegations made bv them

against the workman and also as to the fret thai as

per the entries of withdrawal they confirm that the

amount were withdrawn and received by them.

16. The learned counsel for the pet^:ticner

work-

man has harped that the evidence let in during the

domestic enquiry is nothing but concoction and there

is no direct evidence to establish that the workman

had either forged the signatures of the customers or

•nvsappropria^fed the deposits from the savings banks

account as alleged against him. The eynerts opm'cn

as to the identity of the signatures cannot be a b?sis

to hold that the charges are-, proved, especially

opportunity was given to v^r':ninn to cross examine

the expert disproving tlhe allegat^;ons. More so, when

the material witnesses who are the account" holders

which had resulted in serious prentice to the VTV-

m°-n. So it is 7jreed th'^it ihs

evidence on record

cannot be relied to hold h^;m guilty of the charge of

either forgery or misappropriation.

17. On t!ie other hand it was argued for the mana-

gement that strict rules of Evidence Act cannot be

applied in domestic enquiry proceedings and that non-

examination of the account holder? as to giving of a

complaint against the workman for Irs or"^;rs'o™p PVA

cotnm'ssions cannot have any adverse affect, especial-

ly when .the concerned managers who ar."- pcqun'pted

with the hand writing and initials of the workman as

clerk in discharge of his duties Jin day to day trans-

actions Ihsve spoken the datails of the fraudulent acts

committed by him. •

18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it

k worth while to!?et the •'record straight," <-o as to have

a clear idea of the complicity of the workman a*>d t'-?

ev'd^nce nvsrkble on record jn proof of the., charges t

-,f misconduct. Under ;Ex. Ml i:nA M2 nvyscwrate

:harge"'sheets dated 12-10-93 and,3-?-94 respectively

h*. v-^'rkmnn was ' chained

'alleging ,

that

-'trie discharging; duty as p. cler^-cum-Crsh'Vr

•Wore arid Ma'tndti ' branches pf the respondenl

>ank he 'dealt vriih the saving bank acc^ur.tojof the

ustTaers in which" he made' fictitious, entries' after

sceivlng payments from thera without remitting the

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.

(

20. At first the Presenting Officer's statement was

recorded with reference to the material on record

pertaining to the savings bank withdrawals of the

account holders, the vouchers and the scrolls

en-

dorsed by the workman on the respective dates. In

respect of charges I, II, and III the presenting officer

has relied on L. No.,BH/27/89D/l6-1089 of G.EQD

Hyderabad which is an opinion given by ths expeif.

Tllie defence representative stated that he has

objection to mark this as exhibit, subject to its con-

firmation by the expert through his

evidence. The

E.O. gave a finding that expert need not be examined

in domestic inquiry.

On this aspect the law is settl-

ed that s'rict rules of Evidence Act need

not be

followed in domestic inquiries. Men examination of

expert is in no way pre-judicial to the delinquent vide

K. Venka'eswp.rlu V. Nagarjuna

Grameena Bank

1995(1 )A.L.D. Page 500.

• An objection was raised that when the opinion v/as

received by the regional man&ger, he did not

put his-

initial. So a douubt was expressed that it was not

received by the Regional

Manager.

The official

acts are to be presumed, so the objection is not ten-

able.

21. As regards charge No. II, the statement is that

on 20-6-90 the

workman v/as working as receipts-

cashier at Nellore branch and he received Rs. 1000

remitted by G. Ksmeswara Rao in the Account of

Mrs. A. Parvati and he issued Counter foil to it. But

the said amount Was not, accounted for day's scroll,

muchless in the Savings Bank Account.

However,

when the depositor comphined he remitted Rs. 1000

on 28-8-92 with accrued interest of Rs. 280 in the

snndry d;posits account. Ex. No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are

fi'ed to prove misappronriation by the

workman.

The compla^:nt dried

10-8-92, the

depositor was

mnrked ?s E.x. No. 28. So also another

deposit

amount of the same depositor for Rs. 1000 though

was received but not accounted for which is Ex. No.

22. It is stated, tho* the workman had remitted

Rs. 1285 on 28-9-1992 after calling for explanation

vhih ics Ex. No.9. It is relied to prove that

this

' amount was rvr'sapropriated.

i23. Ths defences representative had asked for pro-

ducing the investigating officers report. The request

wrs rejected

as privileged documents need not be

produced.^ The ruling is not unreasonable.

' 24. A letter addressed by the workman to Branch

Manager Nellore Branch was, relied and marked as

Ex. 29. In respect of the hand writings of the work-

man, experts opinion Ex. P3 was relied.

25. Further stated that on 24-1-89, the workman

had encashed saving bsnk withdrawal at

Nellore

7828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 2y, 2001/PAUSA 8. 1923

[PART II—SEC. 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

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

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

amount

of Rs.

200|-

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.

received

an amount

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

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

Mypadu

Branch.

Parti-

culars in respect of two such instances are

fu,rnishcd below : Tt is thus alleged *hat you

have negotiated

<he withdrawals

wiiih'out

keeping adequate

funds in your account

with a deliberate intention of gaining tem-

porary

use of

Bank's

funds

for

your

personal benefit.

7829

33. Under the law, a person who sets up Hie pica

of undue influence,

threat

and corecion

is re-

quired to prove it for the first time

the workman

came

forward

with

his

version

that

was

threatened wifh

consequences,

so he accepted and

remitted the amount,

which is not at all acceptable

especially when it is in writing.

The

workman is

neither

a guillible person

nor an illetrate to keep

quiet all the while from the alleged date of threat till

he gave statement before the enquiry officer without

relying it.

On the date of enquiry

i.c

27-3-95,

some more documents were marked and covered by

the second part of Ex.

M7 through

the presenting

officer.

On 27-3-95

the account

holder

Yanadayya

was examined

and he was confronted

with the thumb mark covered

by Ex. 22 which he

admitted as that of him, so also Ex. 1, the pass book

belonging to him.

When the second account holder

was questioned as to whether he went to the bank on

26-3-94 to remit any

amount, he admitted that he

remitted Rs.

1000|- and

paid it to the

workman

herein.

He denied

remittance

of the amount on

13-5-94.

He further

confirmed that

the workman

had made

entries in his pass

book.

In the cross

examination he was suggesied that there is no entry

in the p:iss book

of the

transaction on 26-3-94.

Another witnesses N. Subbaiah

was examined who

also admitted his thumb mark contained on Ex. 20

adnvtflng that on 10-4-94, he went to the Bank to

remit Rs. 1000J-. He further stated during his visits

to the bank he used to pay the amounts to the work-

man herein.

He further

clarified

that no receipts

used to be passed for the amounts remitted but en-

tries used to be made by

the

workman.

In cross

examination

the witness was

asked as to when he

put his thumb marks on Ex. 8 and 20 for which his

answer is that he put the thumb mark on the date of

giving

statement

and

about the

other he do not

remember the date.

was also asked to identify

thumb marks shown on Ex. 8, 20, 23 but he expres-

sed that he cannot identiFy.

Being an illiterate, and

a marks man, it is highly difficult for such a person

to identify his own thumb marks.

The points elici-

ted in his cross examination are of no help at nil. The

next wi'ness Smt. B. Ramanamma has stated that she

remitted an amount of Rs. 200|- on 21-3-94.

The

witnesses

stated

that

she

gave

the amount for

remittance in the bank.

She stated that inside the

hall of the bank she remitted

the amount, and she

cannot identify the person to whom she paid.

Unless

an account holder frequently visits and has sufficient

acquaintance with

the banking

transaction and the

persons it is difficult for the illiterate woman to iden-

tify person to whom the amounts were paid and

transaction at the counter of the banks on 16-9-95.

34. The presenting officer was examined to prove

the transactions

the

account holder

Smt. B.

Dhanamma and through

his evidence the complaint

given by Dhanamma, dated 9-5-94, the cash receipts,

scrolls dt. 2-5-94, 11-5-94 were got marked

which

are Ex. 22 to 26.

The

other account

holder exa-

mined Smt. B. Dhanamma also gave her statement.

The workman

witness had expressed

her doubt of

remittance of the amounts but not able to identify the

person to whom the payments were made.

However

it is a fact that remittance was made and the entries

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. Mil 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.

36. On the basis of the oral and documentary evi-

dence, the enquiry officer submitted his reports MS¹

and M9 relating to the charge sheets. He held that¹

the charges were proved.

Basing on the enquiry re-

port the disciplinary authority issued Ex. MI0 notice

fixing personal hearing

and called for objections of

the workman.

After giving personal hearing, a final

order was passed discharging workman from service.

Ex. Ml3 is the appeal which was forwarded through

a covering letter to the appellate authority. Ex. M14^;

is the order passed by the appellate authority con-

firming the final order

passed

by the disciplinary

authority.

37. The strong hold contention of the workman is

that none of the account holders have spoken against

him about payment of amounts directly

ro him, .so

also there is no clinching evidence to show the entries

in the pass book were made by him so as to attribute

that he made fictitious entries in the pass books and

non-remittance of the amounts as alleged.

It is also

pointed out that the expert who gave opinion about

the signatures on the documents

was not produce,!

for cross examination so his opinion cannot be given

any importance.

38. On the other hand the learned counsel for Ibe

respondent bank by placing reliance upon the deci-

sions noted hereunder :—

1. J. D. JAIN vs. THE

MANAGEMENT OF

S. B. INDIA & OTHER

AIR

1982 S.C.

PAGE 673.

2. STATE OF HARYANA vs. RAT AN SINGH

A.I.R. 1977 S.C. PAGE 1512.

("In a domestic inquiry the Strict Rules of

Evidence Act may not apply".)

3. JANATA BAZAR CO-OPERATIVE WHO-

LE SALE STORES LIMITED

Vs. SEC-

RETARY

2000

L.L.R,

(S.C.)

PAGE

1271.

7830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2C01/PAUSA 8. 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J

4. 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".

has urged

that

oral

evidence

is of no

signi-

ficance when there

is a documentary

evidence,

more particularly

</hcn the documentary

evidence,

establish that the workman is the author of it, which

he could not deny it. The entries were made in the

vouchers, the pass books and the scrolls by the work-

man in Ills own hand writing.

It is neither disputed

nor denied that the cams were not handled by him on

th?

relevant

da'cr. dealing with The Savings Bank

Transactions of l!:s Account

holders.

When ihe

Eank c-7.cials who have no grouse against the work-

man who /have identified the signatures, and initials

of the workman in the relevant documents, such evi-

dsne; a~sumss

importance.

It is poinled

out that

strict ro'cz of Evid.nre Act B33J not be followed by

the Enqu'ry Officer ::i::I the Labour Cour£|Tribuii3ls

had

to rjapp/aise

the

evidence on record to see

vvh"th"~ the evidence

cemrciiiei or not.

Speaks cf

tl-:\i whs'iier

o.iiisEloas or commissions

were com-

mitted c; not. The a;!nrr.;ion made by the workman

obou.⁺ t^?--e rerriittanc-3 cf the a-nounls

would support

ti;e ca:o of '\he charges a^r,rged against him.

Having

remii':;! ihe

tuisappro^rsted amounts

to get over

from penalty, lie cc.-uci set up dcience that he remit-

ted it under threat and coercion.

39. The domestic inquiry proceedings are not cri-

minal proceeding::,^Tvl:c;e ihe entire burdci to be on

the prorecut'on

to prove case

beyond

reasonab.e

('ov.bf. livery :iiiie an:; in all cacss it is not ccnpul-

so:y thu¹ -.'~e complrlat is to be invariably examined

r.". a \vi:ne^s to prove (he facts of a report.

Basing

en '^::-? report o" the uxvual holder the Lank Officials

\7?::⁷d inquire in:o the itv.i'Azr with reference to the

£~i2iv~T.Ti',; an'! after

securing

rjiterial evidence in

_v:r:V..:t o? ','izz iJlegatioiis a charge

sheet \\ill be

r:i: ;•:'.. T'.u. adral^hns irade by the erring employee

b?-Vo ths Ua:ik ofaciab is a^nlrs'bie.

A denial of

1* e r>:'"_>,ion at a i:;-er stage is of no help except to

cr¹.'' ti"?iL it is a defence.

£0. Cn a dose scru'iny o; th3 evidence on record

\t r iibv-'-.linlly cbnr tl'at the workman as a cierk-

c".r: "TW?.:

dca't <:>':'.li (!"'3 Iranr.actions and l;e made

t- 'h?. ei:i^:os in

Saving

Bank

Scoks of the

,.:Z:VA':

hnMeir, w!^;.hou^f posting the amounts in the

i';-*.":;"3.

It h cer.ine:;'" *o note that, no motive⁵s

si'. y.:~\'.s-l to any of (:>.e ITank Ofiicials who were exa-

r:;'r.-.i

rn a './i'nesses.

Thtir evidence assumes

'."s:o:':?,i7s r.iri it is very ciear that the payments

"<V2 2 r.cc;'/j'! by the voikmrn

while he transacted

v.'i'.Ii :'ii3 Account ho:.'I;-rs. Though he received pay-

ncp/r. l"ii'" he fi"!cd to rerait the amounts in the con-

C?,~T\?A l?d<T"Ts.

To satisfy ths

account Jiolders he

r>.T.ved CT'rirs in the prrr, bool's. The b".nk to safc-

fruard its reputation had reimbursed ths amounts to

the customers. It is i^niura! that the customers when

once receive nayrnents th.ey are least bothered as to

the action and avoid involving with the person to ex-

pose the erring employee.

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.

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.

42. As regards the quantum of punishment and the

pleas to impose lesser punishment by msans of Sec-

tion 11 (A) "of the I.D. Act, which is to be effect that

punishment cannot be disproportionate to the gravity

of the cha-gss. However, it is to be exercised judi-

ciously by the Labour

Court/Industrial

Tribunals

tab'ng into consideration of the

nature and gravity

of the charges.

The Rule does not say that the

punishment

o: discharge

dismissal

which was

passed by the employer to be reduced

with lenient

punishment.

In wh'te-coilared offences,

it is neces-

sary to observe how far the case deserves sympathy

and whether

the fraud was

played intentionally or

inadvertently. As sen the monetory transactions were

dealt consciously so as to have wrongful gain and to

cause wrongful loss to the Bank.

In banking service

if the employee fails to discharge duties there will be

loss of confidence and honesty, it erodes, the repu-

tation of the bank.

The

respondent's counsel has

placed reliance on the decisions cited supra in which

some gul-clines are laid dewn by the Apex Court

holding that where a misappropriation was combilited.

by the employee it is unwarranted to show uncalled

for sympathy and it is not Justified to impose lesser

punishment by the Tribunal!Labour Courts. The same

principles holds good to the case on hand so it is not

desirable to interfere with the punishment of discharge

from service of the workman in view of the proved

misconduct covered by separate charges covered by

Ex. Ml & M2.

43. In the result an award is passed dismissing the

claim

confirming

the

impugned

order dated

10-2-97 discharging the workman from service hold-

ing it as legal and valid.

In the circumstances there

is no order as tofcosts.

D^;c{a>-cd to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by

him, corrected by me an j the seal of this Tribunal on

this ihe 17th day of October, 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH. Industrial Tribunal-I

Appendix of Evidence

No o^val evidence for both the sides

Documents marked for the Petitioner (By consent)

Ex.,Wl—Letter given by Smt. Bagyamma.

Ex. W2—Letter given by Sri Nooti Subbaiah.

7831

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.

r^{Ex. 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?

the enquiry

officer ori.Ex. M2.

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.

.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,

• '

Marriam Road, Ernakulam.

Foi Manage-

ment.

Sri. C. Anil Kumar,

>A<Jvocdt6,

Ernakulam.

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

[FARI II—SEC. 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-iiclog for adducing 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 th^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

frrd 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

(1) The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner

(1)

Maharashtra ;;nr> GOT. 341,

Bhnv-shva

NiJhi

Bhavan,. B?p;-<ni (E;.st\ Mumbni-400')M

(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.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri G.S. Kubal,

Th" Oenernl Secretary,

G^rMTitfli: M??dwir Sinph,

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?"

2. Shri Gancsh S. Kubal vide his Statement of Claim

(Exhibit-3) nV.'fidcd that he wns working as Head Clcrk| Sec-

tion supervisor, in the office of Regional Provident Fund

Comnvision?!-, p.mj'm, Goa. Re w.;s elected Secretary of

the Employees Provident Fund Staff Union since 1984. It is

contcniL-d that being the S.xretory of the Union he had given

!^;st cf proWcm's of the employees dated 20-5-1993 to

the

Officer

Inchiirpe and thut on 21-6-1993 decision of the

General Body convened to c'.ecidc the modes of agitation that

may be followed on

functioning of the Officer In Charge

was taken. Il is' eontenrfed th^t on 29-6-93 he was suspend-

ed and chargesh'ict alleging that he alongwilh his other

employee colleagues, wrongfully confined Mr. p,M, Mathew,

APl'C and Offi'-er la Charge, Sub Regional Office, Goa, in

h's Chamber in 22-6-93 between 3.00 P.M. and 6.00 P.M.

r.nd al.'o threw til's, p.Tper v/sie'it "rid eggs on the said officer

1'ntl threatefed pnd abused him in vulger language in order

to prr"curi'_'- th'¹ ofTicc-r. In Charge to wifhdraw the Memo

i^ji'ci! to him &j.trt* 21-6-1993, which charges he denied by

reply dptcd 5-7-1993. However, the management held do-

racslic inquiry on the charges and the inquiry officer by the

iv;-,ort dat^d 7-1-1094, held him guilty for the charges proved,

ard thrt tlie dinciniinary authority dismissed him by the order

'•atcd 30-3-1994 "w.e.f. ^-4-l°i4, Tt :s contended, workm.in

prrt'iTrcd appeal on 19-5-1994, however the same was dis-

misTd on 27-4-1998. It is his contention that inquiry was

h'jrrirdlv completed by the inquiry officer, without giving

him opporltin'ty.

He w^-i^pot supplied with the repieN of

(he documents, rrli^d by Ihc rmtiapement. He wns not given

cpporiiinity to prodi'cc defence witnesses by the defenre

I'^ii'-'nre.

Ft is enntrnded thit the management had report-

ed th" nlV^cd 7"fident d^ted 21 [27-6-1993 police, however!

Kiib^rmiently withdrawn the some nrconditionally, It is con-

tcndcti that the worJcmrn beini; offi'cc bearer of un^;on filw;ivr,

?"!'t'i for l'ie cnusi of t'>,e employees, was not allowed to

p:irltc>a!e in the inquiry nnd that proceeding W.TO con-

C'IK'T! without his presence in

hasty mannrr. He con-

('•nc'fti thit the nauiry w;-'s held in violation of S"c!ion 33 of

)!•• lrdiit-lrh! Df«nntes Act and vic'imincd h''m ndopfinj Un-

fair T ->bnur Pr;:ctice. nnd thsr th; prnivhrncrt imposl?d -or

his [l^:«nv'."«*l vm 'ti^r^-ineiv flimr'.inri't'o;¹¹ •(•». Bv way c[

ciirndmcnt (Fx!iibit-24) to the Sintemcnt of Cinim, ihc

ivorVman contended (Tint, the innui'-v was unfair and

the

f"ilijT-s rrenrdrcf bv the inanirv OITK-'-T nre bias nnd conso-

n"rtjt1v Tip r-..mt"7i'1f^>d t¹!" mao'inr w"; held ajpinst the Pii'i-

^ f , ^ ^t^ l ' • . • ' ^

7 " ' , - '

v i c "

t > " i

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

c^{l^rl;B. H^ was}^recommend-

'Hff J-r,- •• r\f aff,f^ for s--i"rfioi hv <h» Hif^l""r ;'i'<>intT^'™^. H.-;

"'"? writ'njr cnnfld'-nti?>1 renorts of the clerks working under

him.

As ror t^u" dntff,; hr, , v i s p - - ^ ^ ^ ; ^ rs^pnnjibi? for Ihf

Ht"ni,«inJ o* worV ii mnVk pnrf r.{pr;PT1f rniaper

Hii tn^i

p.-v «,r^ T>.S, T, ;no p.M

ivhich is much moro than the

7833

.•V.i '-.r. •:•, of !?•• 1,600 P.M. which a workman covered

;•• • ' s'•^: ::..!!•• •'. • Disputes Act, 1947 draws.

It is con-

,' ,:.'...: .,; ... v.!. i .JS Head Clerk was discharging supervisory,

end Managerial functions

is not a 'workman' under section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore this Tri-

bunal has no jurisdiction to try and decide the reference. By

way of Additional Written Statement (Exhibit-7), it is con-

tended by ths management that Shri Kubal while working

as section supervisor in' the' office of Sub Regional Provident

Fund, Panjim, Goa, during 22-6-93 committed, gross mis-..

conduct, i.e., he alongwith' his staff wrongful;y confined

Shri'Mathew, "Officer In Charge, threw files, paper weights

and eggs and, ''threatened and abused him in vulger language

in order to pressurise him to withdraw the memq_

dated

21-6-1993 is^ufd to^T'- *"'

. ' • < - '

• ,' - d in a"" manner

unbecoming 'of an I

Fund Organi-

sation, violating the

"' : ' '.. . of the Central

C;vjl Servic? (Conduct) RuteS 19,64 which are mun'Js mutan-

dis 'applicable to the Stag of Employees Provident Fund, and

thereforsOitaemo v/as given to Kubal and" other staff mem-

bers and the complaint was registered with the police FIR

No. 207)93 under sections 143, 149, 343 and 427 of In«hn

Penal Code, and he was consequently,, chargesheeted

on.

29-6-1993^ of which reply he' gave on 5-7-1993.' It is con- .

tended that domestic inquiry was held against ths workman,

and that inquiry officer on giving sufficient opportunity, held

him guilty for thg- charges proved,, by the report dated 74-94

and that piscipl^fary authority by t|e order dated,30-3-199,4".

d!smi£sM,*i!^;m w.e.f. 4-4-T994. it is'contended inquiry was

fixed^;on' 25-7-1993 by the inquiry',officer, however work-

man did not 'attend the inquiry and that he attended it en-

th^adjourihed' date ?.e. 22-7'; 1993 and received the copies. lie

croSs^lexamined all-the witnesses personally. He WPS wcl.l

aware¹ of the rules and regulations as he was, working as .

section supervisor, by qualifying the departmental examina-,

tion... In nddition to that, he; was holding,the post of Union,'

Secretary of the Region with tn'e Sub-Div'sionaJ Office. Panjihu.'

Goa.'and W3s well versed with the'procedure!; It is eentendad

thr>t Kuba! tried <^vfo*'establish • ifs militancy by using aojisfv

language. He triad to instigate atticr fellow employees" arid

encouraged them' to indulge in violent ectioij. Du6 to asjgres-^!

s^;vg and vio'rtnt .behaviour hq nevgr triough of'welfare of

fel,kR#.;mm, he4*ied to establish his gslf styled leadership,

which'was, t<?^<a1lvM!il^>'"ccfr:fnv.

Tt "is contended that ifl-

quiry .officer' ifi'"" •(>•"• ••-»

•.•.>•'••. <; .-idtijded fee inquiry

with good,;re.'!'¹oi'.^:-'>'i«::ii.-¹ fHe i-\-i(i''v being fair and finding

bsjngi, impsrti::l 'iiv.MvUphwvy

jM'V'c.'-ily accepted the.report,

and {hat Ann'l^f

•.••;!-•.;...•. (VH^'i'.^! the sarq'e. *i Its-

•

;

•

]

•

not a {'workman' under .the-. Act'iTd therefore the" reference

]S«P*. .HiamtoihP.ble. By Re'oinder (Exbibit-9) Kubal reiterW

te;.t,<% contentions in his Statement of-'Claim, denying 'the

recitals--in Written Statement.

«,

':'•', "

& ..Qni.pernsal.o'f the rival •••pleadings''of the 'parties nfy

Learned-, Predecessor framed preliminary issues at Exhibitt$.*.

On lrna!.f .of. the rmriir^TT!?ii^f A^r. Rdrvih F. J. NoronV^

RegionaL Provident '•'•• '1 <~t>"^r-- -!.^;'' • - filed rffidwit by was

of Exihiiiait'on^n-Clwf'^^h-H'--?',' r-(] -, i-v-utal, wojc-

ra.an fil^pd affidavit by "<." -.•' rv>'-i",-- >-i '.••' ri>';£,[E5rI>ibk-

21"). 'I Kave goue thre¹'*¹' !!:e \ i-i?'.* •> •• •':r\'.- ,^:(>i-s "of Kubal .

CRxfiib^-3'31 r-* r-.,!-••••• "...

\)fq jj-j a'vyliole, and going

thrpiinb the <• •' ••• •• :•

; • • r5cqrd'ny findings on⁽.he '

preliminary • ••• ••. .,,•:•;:.. .? ••••<. as' under : * ^; ',

/,_ _Issues.^ w/.y- ..•••'

i '

, "Finings

•,- i?s Wheffte'r'^:'hie^r'ivibTmal

has/jurisdiction ,v . v-*

1 :•;••.. to* d%tide the reference? .

. ', ,

' .< Yes.

fr; 2.'* Whether th« doiaastie,. iiifiiiryvwhioh wis1 f;*:. ' ^

f1*:" ** heM ,,against the.-'"worker was-'against v'-

'".»f*»'¹

•",~ O n e piiqciples, of,.Natu,ral -Kisfice? i ' '•' •"' teV"'

~"*3. ^bp**"Tr^tur- F»4¹.-rSrif t^>.>•"":•• -. •• •.?.",•^: ' ••

'""" . 'ofB.-'r ,'!!;• ;!.:,io;v:-';.ii;! P(«» i?;;.v:d f ' •'''•«'^ '^v

/ O R ' ' •' .' •..•;/ ; ••' *"«.' .V:'

Doas^ot SUlrvive.^"

1 - ^ ;-;tr

" '.;^^Asolko

,';:•,'

" -, - w -

,5! AAflip *ir«fcpId*.'Ae'^contentfA'p? of tns ^anag^'nt- -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 iiriT? ¹!, ¹^'!

•>:•'• 'funSbns.

He'. » . ^ '

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:

"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,".¹.';*.• '."ecisioA^r

.-on merrts by rafslng • .::> <». ;.-, , ):••; ,-;• I a;-*.:: therer

••H^T 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.

^indulge to luxurieus litigation and drag workmen

from court tp court merely to vindicate, not justice,

.tut some rigid-"* technical stand . takent'up by them.

We hope that Vnblic secto- ^"--——»=— '---•" <• —,ce.

fo; ih refrnin from raising . • ;ht-

i r t g

•

«$''

* -

II is tried to sjiyfhat Indh&irfal' Disputes Act V a legis-

ktion, intended, to bring aboit "neace i-arid harrtiony

between labour .'arc¹ ir-Tr-:. >\ '•:•>' U) ;;,i '••\<r. ;••<.• and

for that purpose,-

•.•" • •••.,• "..(•.-• :;•;• ,^!, .'•iijsti-

gari'on and <=.-**'-.•.••:' .::^: \\.\- : M .:••••.: \>. .': is

thfVbfort: •• . ; .•• ir> :i

• , :;•

;,-:^:.•••.••:, of

ifldusiry.'-'.¹

. r • i-.' - •• 1 d'spute' etc. so as not

to whiillq down, but to. advance the-object of the

Act. Disputes between the forces¹' #f labour and

7834

tHE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DEd&MBER 29, 2001 /PAUSA 8. 1923

[PART if—SE£ 3 (10!

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

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,

and we proceed, in considering the question whether

development

officer* in the life Insurance. Corpo-

ration are workmen, to first consider: the broed fluesr

tion on which ..side of the line they fall, labour, or

management, and then to consider whether there nre

any good -reasons for moving them over from one

side to other.'¹

8. In the said ruling Their Lprdchlpa observed in, para 6

"One does riot have to be carried BWay by the appellation

'deyeiopment offMerV as tfje Industrial Tribunal Mawars to

haye been. After all, what is in a name? Notwithstanding

the glorified designation, we miwt look; to (ho nature of his

duties to discover what precisely a development officer is 7"

and thereafter Their Lordships in para 9 observed

"the Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corpo-

ration even is a workman",

9. While ,di«cuflsiog the definition of 'workman' Their Lord-

ships in South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. A.R. Chacko AIR 1964

SC 1522 in para 9 observed that :

"Head' Clerks, Accountants, Head Cashiers should prima

facie be taken in the category of workman".

110, Their LordtJjip* of Bombay High Court in Union Car-

bide (India) !*d. 'V*. D. Samuel and Ors. 1959 LLR 21

while discussing Supervisor and Workman laid down some

tests :

(1) Designation .is iWrt ipaterial but what is important

is (he nature of work.

(2) Find out the dominant purpose of employment and

rial flny additional duties, the employee may be per-

forming.

(3) Can Ji& bind the tumpaujf jcxupiuycr io ^Q^H^ KUIQ of

decisions on behalf of the OamDanvlemnlrwcr.

(4) Ha» the employer power to direct or oversee the

work of his

subordinates,

(5) Hajhe power to a sanction leave or recommend it;

and

'ty Has, He-has th& pwer Wflpnomt; *Hinraate or take

disciplinary action againlt

workmen.

Employer ttietejn was nyiu, ^ «vn Tyvtwi«ti up^wuwivw

he wds

performing

managerial|supervisory[aidmini3trativei

dutiet.

1,1. In the ?ase onhaad^if we: go^rough 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 Lord^ps, 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- qn' 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.

12. Orice it is cleat that Xubal iq a workman, next point;

crop on "Whether' the domestic inquiry held against him w«t

fair and proper?". According to worknjan, Sbri'Kubel lifte*

1984 he was elected Secretary of th*, Gqa Union pi th«

Employees Provident Fiind Staff UnJonu till his terminati'm.

Hi» service reeord was dean and therefore p^pinote4 to UPtJ

and thereafter to¹ Head Clerk through examination-' Vide his(

affidavit (Exhibit-21> he stated that till 18-6-1993 there were

no prebloms of employees with

the. -management.

Ho,

disclosed that, he was falsely chargesheeted being a unioor

leader oix 29r6-93, for the alleged

incident of

22-6r93.

These charges pertain to rnisconduct of.riotiou*,

disonjedy

and violent behaviour against Shri PA4. Mathew, A-P-P ^c^'

as mentioned- in Annexure-I, inqViiry proceeding* pg(1 14

(Ex.^l6>, summarily, depicted iij. ludgement papi-2 above.

He stated that inquiry' is. not fair OS he. was oot given copy

of the service rales and regulations to enable to file tm

written brief,'and that was given only op 2^1O"1993.- • He

was not given opportunity, to produce defence witnesses. He

was not allowed to. participate in the inquiry proceedings.

According to him, inqujry wa? concluded-turriedlyj

It is his

contention that behind his back, evidencevo* so<ne of> the

witnesses was. recorded arid therefore finding* are perverse

and that Inquiry officer was biased., On perusal of the record,

it is seen the management vide application (Exhibk-20!) had

requested my Learned Predecessor to-allow them to asjc some

questions to their Witness ^Ir. Noronha by way of-Examma-

tion-in^Jhief,- however, tlrat request was. rejected on 13-2^9*.

Managements counsel Shri Shetty cross-examined the work-

man on.1-11*99. Workman Shri Kubal at this juncture sub-

mits that, his evidence in so far as the inquiry vitiates and

findings biased have not been challenged-

As per-

issue

burden is on the wortcman to prove as to how the inquiry is

against the Principles of Natural Justice and fair

play

and findings arc biased. Workman, Kubal for the reason*

given above, pointed out that the inquiry is not, fair. There-

fore ft Is necessary to scrutinise, t}»e evidence as to whether!

for the reasons given by workman, inquiry vitiates.

13. The main contention of workman is that

he was

not allowed to depose in respect of the charges regarding

his c»se. He had taken that point in his written statement,

filed before thp inqstw officer dated 22-11-1993. I?xhibi'-16,

i.e. prior to the report of the^ inquiry officer dated 7-1-1994.

On pcrsual of the inquiry proceedings, filed by the manage-

ment (Ex-16) nowhere finds the evidence of the delinquent

workman wa» recorded by the • inquiry, officer. -Normally

after recording the evidence of the management witnesses,

the Inquiry officer should have given opportunity to workman

to lead his evidence arid, his witness for fair trial. How-

ever, according to workman, IJB- war not #ven opportunity.

True it is, in a domestic inquiry a detailed procedure

recording evidence as followed in courts need not be strictly

adhered to for which reliance-can be place on Sukhadco

Vishwanath Oarage Vs. Mis. Food. Corporation of India artd

Ors. 1998 I LU pg,)277., Rujes.. of evidence Act do not apply

to, the departmentaV inquiries and thit it. fe the duty t)f the-

inquiry 'Officer to eHci^trijth from witnesses and for Uiia, he

identified to cross examine the witnesses for the same and

thij will not bring any biai.

At the iame^: time it cannot hf

7J35

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

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001

S'O. 3529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the, In-

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

GaverameBt hereby publishes the award of the In-

dustrial TVibunal^cunirLabour, Gourt, Ernakulam a&_

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet-

ween the employers in relation to the management of

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

Thjs.reference waa macfc by the Central Government

as per Order No. L-42012) 193|99|IR (DU)

dated

27-1-2000.

The dispute is between

the Secretary,

Parent

Teacher's

Association

Kendriya

Vidyalaya, Kadavanthara, Ernakulam and its workman

Sri,¹ Rajvi. F. V., Driver. The

dispute referred

"Whether the action of the management of PTA of

Kendriya

Vidyalaya,

Kadavanthara/Ernakulam

terminating the service of

Sri. Ravi. P. V. Driver

w.ei. 21-2-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. In the reference, the workman is represented by

the General Secretary, Private Motor Thoshilali Union

(AITUC), T.U. House, C.S. Road, Cochin.

3. On receipt of notice issued from this court the

management appeared. iKspite of repeated notices the

union did not appear. The notices issued vcre

re-

turned unserved.

So notice was ordered through

Central Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam^ Accor-

dingly the Central Regional Labour Commissioner,

Ernakulam served the summons on the union. In spfte

of that the union did not appear. Hence I am satis-

fied that there, is no pending industrial dispute bet-

ween the parties to be adjudicated by this court.

In the result, an award is passed finding that the^e

is no pending industrial dtspute between the Secre-

tary, Parent Teacher's Association,

Kendriya Vidya-

laya, Kadav«n$hara, Er#afcujam, and. its

workman

Sri. Ravi represented by the General Secretary, Pri-

vate Motor Thozhilali Union (AITUC),

T. U,